From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jun 5 16:07:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B13021F85D0; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:07:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MIomTl8h0kvZ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3CD11E8086; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:07:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120605230756.24157.30765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:07:56 -0700 Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:07:57 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Port Control Protocol Working Group o= f the IETF. Title : Port Control Protocol (PCP) Author(s) : Dan Wing Stuart Cheshire Mohamed Boucadair Reinaldo Penno Paul Selkirk Filename : draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt Pages : 100 Date : 2012-06-05 The Port Control Protocol allows an IPv6 or IPv4 host to control how incoming IPv6 or IPv4 packets are translated and forwarded by a network address translator (NAT) or simple firewall, and also allows a host to optimize its outgoing NAT keepalive messages. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ From dwing@cisco.com Tue Jun 5 16:15:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E143521F8639 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aY1RV+7kArQb for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4081221F85E3 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:15:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=1600; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1338938130; x=1340147730; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=OBdXAvHU414y1Y0DiEOOPLJ9Tf2B70jb56uCxzQjTag=; b=Ft0Zbe0ePfD3r08+T2fmFcY84INuCoKfxNMoa/3v11MrYUzuuZn/vahL MToRKbUgX/UR0xxmozUd4BDsRJLD2erOGm9B5Unu0aybqge3F8wjHex0B 0tSUwTtA9yBxACSLAbTsIujm9Vh7ZKDD54BoNbtnghR1z/5qnpQOTqwNn g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFAM6Szk+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABFpU2OdYEHgh8ICgEXED8NBRhQIxwBBB4Xh2gMl0mfa44WgxYDiECEfYhtjQGBZoMA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,721,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="47721678" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jun 2012 23:15:30 +0000 Received: from dwingWS (dhcp-10-154-137-174.cisco.com [10.154.137.174]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q55NFTjF001051; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:15:29 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:15:29 -0700 Message-ID: <0a1c01cd4371$195b9450$4c12bcf0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac1DcRk0x/IExXuAS7OuKR1nXbvbXw== Content-Language: en-us Cc: draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org Subject: [pcp] pcp-base-26 submitted X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:15:31 -0000 A few small changes in -26, which I just submitted. They are: o Changed "internal address and port" to "internal address, protocol, and port" in several more places. to clear Ralph Droms' DISCUSS, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ballot/#ralph-droms o Improved wording of THIRD_PARTY restrictions. to clear Stephen Farrell's DISCUSS, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ballot/#stephen-farrell o Bump version number from 1 to 2, to accommodate pre-RFC PCP client implementations without needing a heuristic. to accommodate pre-24 implementations that exist in the wild, so that a PCP server can differentiate between a pre-24 version from RFC versions without needing to use a heuristic. The version number field is 8 bits, and moving from 1 to 2 is not a significant impact to the protocol -- the addition of the Mapping Nonce to the PEER and MAP OpCodes (in -25) already broke protocol compatibility on the wire. Other DISCUSSes are believed to have been resolved with the addition of the Mapping Nonce in -25. We are still contacting those IESG members to be sure their DISCUSSes have been addressed in the -25 update. Version -26, which was just submitted, is available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 Side-by-side diffs between -25 and -26 are at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt Side-by-side diffs between -24 and -26 are at http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pcp-base-24.txt&url2=draft-iet f-pcp-base-26.txt -d From phdgang@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 00:16:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03F121F86AD for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:16:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BT7wujpc1i-y for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036D921F869F for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by werb13 with SMTP id b13so296484wer.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:16:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TmjXylppEk8XTLjpsl6wL5+zUdYNLi3N1+2OPLeJwmE=; b=bRIJ16yb5lnCSYclQ2mXFzfV8TtZIrRyM5M8b6jvwQ8ZB5DTEdCOSG3ikiljp1J5MF xM8KfiZqvUiwDU7V54wqavtkV4fZJKTv1UmcxrVTUKn8ctk/UWaw5ul7HC0p4LVDISEA Io5ZRu2lSqYIFx2x1TCuMCTTdAXzIa8H4WYMV9UasOfHtgZf6d5xjenUcZng3uHzujhk 97wxCCAWIIx6K+Jwu8DjqwULjT3D3GeUs6lkUm3zhHIOl9NxRl7fBxLyMBnfXoEgRbSz +of3aSFJAfYjpqzGkrVkBHwKZXVdjfv2v5X5YQM7WZb+UqYW86+HQOZCtr5dogQWAdHA M4Lw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.218.216 with SMTP id k66mr9527055wep.191.1339571803961; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.104.136 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:16:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <0a1c01cd4371$195b9450$4c12bcf0$@com> References: <0a1c01cd4371$195b9450$4c12bcf0$@com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:16:43 +0800 Message-ID: From: GangChen To: Dan Wing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: pcp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp-base-26 submitted X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:16:45 -0000 Not sure if that is a bug Page 30, the table shown internal external remote peer -------- ------- ----------- NAT46 IPv4 IPv6 IPv6 NAT64 IPv6 IPv4 IPv4 One sentence above say "The 'remote peer' address is the Remote Peer IP Address of the PEER request or the FILTER option of the MAP request, and is always the same address family as the 'internal' address, even when NAT64 is used. " Aligning with the sentence, I guess the table should be corrected as internal external remote peer -------- ------- ----------- NAT46 IPv4 IPv6 IPv4 NAT64 IPv6 IPv4 IPv6 Is this correct? Gang 2012/6/6, Dan Wing : > A few small changes in -26, which I just submitted. They are: > > o Changed "internal address and port" to "internal address, > protocol, and port" in several more places. > > to clear Ralph Droms' DISCUSS, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ballot/#ralph-droms > > > o Improved wording of THIRD_PARTY restrictions. > > to clear Stephen Farrell's DISCUSS, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ballot/#stephen-farrell > > > o Bump version number from 1 to 2, to accommodate pre-RFC PCP client > implementations without needing a heuristic. > > to accommodate pre-24 implementations that exist in the wild, so that a PCP > server can differentiate between a pre-24 version from RFC versions without > needing to use a heuristic. The version number field is 8 bits, and moving > from 1 to 2 is not a significant impact to the protocol -- the addition of > the Mapping Nonce to the PEER and MAP OpCodes (in -25) already broke > protocol compatibility on the wire. > > Other DISCUSSes are believed to have been resolved with the addition of the > Mapping Nonce in -25. We are still contacting those IESG members to be > sure > their DISCUSSes have been addressed in the -25 update. > > > Version -26, which was just submitted, is available at > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 > > Side-by-side diffs between -25 and -26 are at > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt > > Side-by-side diffs between -24 and -26 are at > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pcp-base-24.txt&url2=draft-iet > f-pcp-base-26.txt > > -d > > > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > pcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp > From dwing@cisco.com Thu Jun 14 08:22:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D60421F86F8 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:22:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vv27FP8lAjNp for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74BB21F86F4 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:22:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=4076; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1339687338; x=1340896938; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+EMvw5eF30iRJsRikVsO/pPShJI2yV734qezdnst19k=; b=cPQxi6q+WmfkfzViZm65UCLWaXDMd9O4rIj9MoNotmlRIL9b2+fe6Azg 4zwusd83t0JIhY86zgj9Ha+y9qVsEII2ddUafpW/a2/zelT3yGDkxS73i wEQMYF2WCqQ1Ulydtu7eA8eUEj+P9QyoFj0YegXwZI574rebfJBzzP6V5 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMKAFcB2k+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABFplCNPQOBLIEHghgBAQEDAQEBAQUKARcQNAsFBwEDAgkPAgQBASgHGQgGFQoJCAEBBBMLF4dbAwYEDJlvljkNiU6KUGJ5hRgDiEGEf4hziW2DF4FmgwA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,770,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="48862377" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2012 15:22:17 +0000 Received: from dwingWS ([10.89.15.215]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5EFMGxs026957; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:22:16 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'GangChen'" References: <0a1c01cd4371$195b9450$4c12bcf0$@com> In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:22:16 -0700 Message-ID: <10f201cd4a41$7be1aed0$73a50c70$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac1JNIfaY9vaAontSvuM8abrsQGD8gBDLK9g Content-Language: en-us Cc: pcp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp-base-26 submitted X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:22:20 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: GangChen [mailto:phdgang@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:17 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: pcp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pcp] pcp-base-26 submitted > > Not sure if that is a bug > Page 30, the table shown > > internal external remote peer > -------- ------- ----------- > NAT46 IPv4 IPv6 IPv6 > NAT64 IPv6 IPv4 IPv4 > > One sentence above say > > "The 'remote peer' address is > the Remote Peer IP Address of the PEER request or the FILTER option > of the MAP request, and is always the same address family as the > 'internal' address, even when NAT64 is used. " > > Aligning with the sentence, I guess the table should be corrected as > > internal external remote peer > -------- ------- ----------- > NAT46 IPv4 IPv6 IPv4 > NAT64 IPv6 IPv4 IPv6 > > Is this correct? I made that change at the request of a reviewer, and you are correct -- the change should not have been made. The PCP client, when using the NAT64, is not (necessarily) aware of the remote peer being IPv4 or IPv6 -- it knows for sure the 5-tuple seen on the PCP client itself (not on the far side of the NAT64). The correct table is: internal external remote peer -------- ------- ----------- IPv4 firewall IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 IPv6 firewall IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 NAT44 IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 NAT46 IPv4 IPv6 IPv6 NAT64 IPv6 IPv4 IPv4 NPTv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 which will be fixed in -27 (if we need to publish that) or during AUTH48 editing. Thanks for catching this error! -d > Gang > > 2012/6/6, Dan Wing : > > A few small changes in -26, which I just submitted. They are: > > > > o Changed "internal address and port" to "internal address, > > protocol, and port" in several more places. > > > > to clear Ralph Droms' DISCUSS, > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ballot/#ralph- > droms > > > > > > o Improved wording of THIRD_PARTY restrictions. > > > > to clear Stephen Farrell's DISCUSS, > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base/ballot/#stephen- > farrell > > > > > > o Bump version number from 1 to 2, to accommodate pre-RFC PCP > client > > implementations without needing a heuristic. > > > > to accommodate pre-24 implementations that exist in the wild, so that > a PCP > > server can differentiate between a pre-24 version from RFC versions > without > > needing to use a heuristic. The version number field is 8 bits, and > moving > > from 1 to 2 is not a significant impact to the protocol -- the > addition of > > the Mapping Nonce to the PEER and MAP OpCodes (in -25) already broke > > protocol compatibility on the wire. > > > > Other DISCUSSes are believed to have been resolved with the addition > of the > > Mapping Nonce in -25. We are still contacting those IESG members to > be > > sure > > their DISCUSSes have been addressed in the -25 update. > > > > > > Version -26, which was just submitted, is available at > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 > > > > Side-by-side diffs between -25 and -26 are at > > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-26.txt > > > > Side-by-side diffs between -24 and -26 are at > > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pcp-base- > 24.txt&url2=draft-iet > > f-pcp-base-26.txt > > > > -d > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pcp mailing list > > pcp@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp > > From praspati@cisco.com Mon Jun 25 03:51:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F13321F852C for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:51:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z97vZohZmqmw for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CDC21F84FF for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:51:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=praspati@cisco.com; l=1141; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1340621465; x=1341831065; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QnKU9Tt/2l+O2MMLoVw79/jVF8QlFI6IPnNaFiO8cjc=; b=M5PB0H8QtBms2B4XVGwj3CDVQxn/GJVX3mgB31iHgPsIvFJWj8UZLRs8 qJVFaeLSaEP+aZElBLLjdESEF0bPdiAbaWPRffkkmBlWgqermiXThKy/A j29MHdVpZapA2c569Q+CTCf/ZZkaPaEW26R0++iTY45dP1MzWDQGwb5fp s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAGJB6E+tJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABEtiCBB4IfEgEnUQE+QhsKAgQ1h2kLl2iBKJ8vkTUDlS6BEo0JgWaCXw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,471,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="95616628" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2012 10:51:03 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5PAp37b017043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:51:03 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.7.143]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 05:51:02 -0500 From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" To: "pcp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-reddy-pcp-server-discovery-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHNUsBp1+iaBb6lGU2LOEia8WEYLA== Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:51:02 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120623175946.10947.82948.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 x-originating-ip: [64.103.230.183] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-18994.004 x-tm-as-result: No--23.425700-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1C8378A47A461146A62D8647CEBD1C2C@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pcp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reddy-pcp-server-discovery-00.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:51:09 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : PCP Server Discovery in IPv6 Multihoming Author(s) : Tirumaleswar Reddy Prashanth Patil Dan Wing Fred Baker Filename : draft-reddy-pcp-server-discovery-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2012-06-23 Abstract: A multihomed network may have a PCP server on each router connecting to each upstream network, providing firewall or prefix translation functions to hosts in the network. In these networks, a PCP client needs to discover all of those PCP servers and then send PCP requests to them individually. This document proposes a multicast mechanism to discover PCP servers. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-pcp-server-discovery There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-pcp-server-discovery-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jun 29 14:13:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D57121F884B; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:13:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5E2q6hguxUdc; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4F621F883A; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:13:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120629211350.22660.31878.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:13:50 -0700 Cc: pcp@ietf.org Subject: [pcp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pcp-authentication-00.txt X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: PCP wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:13:52 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Port Control Protocol Working Group of th= e IETF. Title : Port Control Protocol (PCP) Authentication Mechanism Author(s) : Margaret Wasserman Sam Hartman Dacheng Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-pcp-authentication-00.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2012-06-29 Abstract: An IPv4 or IPv6 host can use the Port Control Protocol (PCP) to flexibly manage the IP address and port mapping information on Network Address Translators (NATs) or firewalls, to facilitate communications with remote hosts. However, the un-controlled generation or deletion of IP address mappings on such network devices may cause security risks and should be avoided. In some cases the client may need to prove that it is authorized to modify, create or delete PCP mappings. This document proposes an in-band authentication mechanism for PCP that can be used in those cases. The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) is used to perform authentication between PCP devices. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-authentication There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-authentication-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/