[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-wing-pcp-base) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RFC 6887

PCP working group                                           D. Wing, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                             S. Cheshire
Expires: September 1, 2011                                         Apple
                                                            M. Boucadair
                                                          France Telecom
                                                                R. Penno
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                               F. Dupont
                                             Internet Systems Consortium
                                                       February 28, 2011


                      Port Control Protocol (PCP)
                         draft-ietf-pcp-base-06

Abstract

   Port Control Protocol allows a host to control how incoming IPv6 or
   IPv4 packets are translated and forwarded by a network address
   translator (NAT) or simple firewall to an IPv6 or IPv4 host, and also
   allows a host to optimize its NAT keepalive messages.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2011.

Copyright Notice




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Supported Transport Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Single-homed Customer Premises Network . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Relationship of PCP Server and its NAT . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Common Request and Response Header Format  . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Response Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.4.  Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  General PCP Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.1.  General PCP Client: Generating a Request . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.2.  General PCP Server: Processing a Request . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.3.  General PCP Client: Processing a Response  . . . . . . . . 16
     6.4.  Multi-Interface Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.5.  Epoch  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.6.  Version negotiation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     6.7.  General PCP Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.7.1.  UNPROCESSED  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Introduction to MAP and PEER OpCodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.1.  For Operating a Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.2.  For Reducing NAT Keepalive Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.3.  For Operating a Symmetric Client/Server  . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  MAP OpCodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     8.1.  OpCode Packet Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     8.2.  OpCode-Specific Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     8.3.  OpCode-Specific Client: Generating a Request . . . . . . . 27
     8.4.  OpCode-Specific Server: Processing a Request . . . . . . . 27
     8.5.  OpCode-Specific Client: Processing a Response  . . . . . . 29
     8.6.  Mapping Lifetime and Deletion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


     8.7.  Subscriber Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     8.8.  PCP Options for MAP OpCodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
       8.8.1.  REMOTE_PEER_FILTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
       8.8.2.  PREFER_FAILURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
       8.8.3.  THIRD_PARTY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     8.9.  PCP Mapping State Maintenance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
       8.9.1.  Recreating Mappings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
       8.9.2.  Maintaining Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   9.  PEER OpCodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     9.1.  OpCode Packet Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     9.2.  OpCode-Specific Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     9.3.  OpCode-Specific Client: Generating a Request . . . . . . . 40
     9.4.  OpCode-Specific Server: Processing a Request . . . . . . . 41
     9.5.  OpCode-Specific Client: Processing a Response  . . . . . . 41
     9.6.  PCP Options for PEER OpCodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
       9.6.1.  THIRD_PARTY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   10. THIRD_PARTY Option for MAP and PEER OpCodes  . . . . . . . . . 42
   11. Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     11.1. Maintaining Same External IP Address . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     11.2. Ingress Filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
     11.3. Per-Subscriber Port Forwarding Quota . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   12. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     12.1. Dual Stack-Lite  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
       12.1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     12.2. NAT64  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     12.3. NAT44 and NAT444 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     12.4. IPv6 Simple Firewall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
     13.1. Denial of Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     13.2. Ingress Filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     13.3. Validating Target Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   14. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     14.1. Port Number  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     14.2. OpCodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
     14.3. Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     14.4. Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
   15. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
   16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
   Appendix A.  Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
     A.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-05 to -06 . . . . . . . . 52
     A.2.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-04 to -05 . . . . . . . . 53
     A.3.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-03 to -04 . . . . . . . . 54
     A.4.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-02 to -03 . . . . . . . . 54
     A.5.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-01 to -02 . . . . . . . . 55
     A.6.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 to -01 . . . . . . . . 55
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


1.  Introduction

   Port Control Protocol (PCP) provides a mechanism to control how
   incoming packets are forwarded by upstream devices such as NAT64,
   NAT44, and firewall devices, and a mechanism to reduce application
   keepalive traffic.  PCP is primarily designed to be implemented in
   the context of both Carrier-Grade NATs (CGN) and small NATs (e.g.,
   residential NATs).  PCP allows hosts to operate server for a long
   time (e.g., a webcam) or a short time (e.g., while playing a game or
   on a phone call) when behind a NAT device, including when behind a
   CGN operated by their Internet service provider.

   PCP allows applications to create mappings from an external IP
   address and port to an internal (target) IP address and port.  These
   mappings are required for successful inbound communications destined
   to machines located behind a NAT or a firewall.

   After creating a mapping for incoming connections, it is necessary to
   inform remote computers about the IP address and port for the
   incoming connection.  This is usually done in an application-specific
   manner.  For example, a computer game would use a rendezvous server
   specific to that game (or specific to that game developer), and a SIP
   phone would use a SIP proxy.  PCP does not provide this rendezvous
   function.  The rendezvous function will support IPv4, IPv6, or both.
   Depending on that support and the application's support of IPv4 or
   IPv6, the PCP client will need an IPv4 mapping, an IPv6 mapping, or
   both.

   Many NAT-friendly applications send frequent application-level
   messages to ensure their session will not be timed out by a NAT.
   These are commonly called "NAT keepalive" messages, even though they
   are not sent to the NAT itself (rather, they are sent 'through' the
   NAT).  These applications can reduce the frequency of those NAT
   keepalive messages by using PCP to learn (or control) the NAT mapping
   lifetime.  This helps reduce bandwidth on the subscriber's access
   network, traffic to the server, and battery consumption on mobile
   devices.

   Many NATs and firewalls have included application layer gateways
   (ALGs) to create mappings for applications that establish additional
   streams or accept incoming connections.  ALGs incorporated into NATs
   additionally modify the application payload.  Industry experience has
   shown that these ALGs are detrimental to protocol evolution.  PCP
   allows an application create its own mappings in NATs and firewalls,
   removing the incentive to deploy ALGs in NATs and firewalls.






Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


2.  Scope

2.1.  Deployment Scenarios

   PCP can be used in various deployment scenarios, including:

   o  Dual Stack-Lite [I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite], and;

   o  NAT64, both Stateful [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful] and
      Stateless [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate], and;

   o  Carrier-Grade NAT [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements], and;

   o  Basic NAT [RFC3022], and;

   o  Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT) [RFC3022], such as
      commonly deployed in residential NAT devices, and;

   o  Layer-2 aware NAT [I-D.miles-behave-l2nat] and Dual-Stack Extra
      Lite [I-D.arkko-dual-stack-extra-lite], and;

   o  IPv6 firewall control [RFC6092].

2.2.  Supported Transport Protocols

   The PCP OpCodes defined in this document are designed to support
   transport protocols that use a 16-bit port number (e.g., TCP, UDP,
   SCTP, DCCP).  Transport protocols that do not use a port number
   (e.g., IPsec ESP), and the ability to use PCP to forward all traffic
   to a single default host (often nicknamed "DMZ"), are beyond the
   scope of this document.

2.3.  Single-homed Customer Premises Network

   The PCP machinery assumes a single-homed host model.  That is, for a
   given IP version, only one default route exists to reach the
   Internet.  This is important because after a PCP mapping is created
   and an inbound packet (e.g., TCP SYN) arrives at the host the
   outbound response (e.g., TCP SYNACK) has to go through the same path
   so the proper address rewriting takes place on that outbound response
   packet.  This restriction exists because otherwise there would need
   to be one PCP server for each egress, because the host could not
   reliably determine which egress path packets would take, so the
   client would need to be able to reliably make the same internal/
   external mapping in every NAT gateway, which in general is not
   possible.





Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


3.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   Internal Host, Target Host:
      A host served by a NAT gateway, or protected by a firewall.  This
      is the host that receives the incoming traffic created by a PCP
      MAP request, or the host that initiated an implicit dynamic
      mapping (e.g., TCP SYN) across a firewall or a NAT.

   Remote Host:
      A host with which an Internal Host is communicating.

   Target Address, External Address, Remote Peer Address:
      The address of an Internal Host served by a NAT gateway (typically
      a private address [RFC1918]) or an Internal Host protected by a
      firewall.

      An External Address is the address of an Internal Host as seen by
      other Remote Hosts on the Internet with which the Internal Host is
      communicating, after translation by any NAT gateways on the path.
      An External Address is generally a public routable (i.e., non-
      private) address.  In the case of an Internal Host protected by a
      pure firewall, with no address translation on the path, its
      External Address is the same as its Internal Address.

      A Remote Peer Address is the address of a Remote Host, as seen by
      the Internal Host.  A Remote Address is generally a public
      routable address.  In the case of a Remote Host that is itself
      served by a NAT gateway, the Remote Address my in fact be the
      Remote Host's External Address, but since this remote translation
      is generally invisible to software running on the Internal Host,
      the distinction can safely be ignored for the purposes of this
      document.

   Third Party:
      In the common case, an Internal Host manages its own Mappings
      using PCP requests, and the Internal Address of those Mappings is
      the same as the source IP address of the PCP request packet.

      In the case where one device is managing Mappings on behalf of
      some other device, the presence of the THIRD_PARTY option in the
      MAP request signifies that the specified address, not the source
      IP address of the PCP request packet, should be used as the
      Internal Address for the Mapping.  This can occur when PCP is
      proxied (e.g., PCP to PCP proxy, UPnP IGD to PCP proxy) or if the



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


      target host does not implement PCP.

   Mapping:
      A NAT mapping creates a relationship between an internal (target)
      IP transport address and an external IP transport address.  More
      specifically, it creates a translation rule where packets destined
      to the external IP and port are translated to the target IP and
      port.  In the case of a pure firewall, the "Mapping" is the
      identity function, translating an internal port number to the same
      external port number and vice versa, and this "Mapping" indicates
      to the firewall that traffic to and from this internal port number
      is permitted to pass.  See also Port Forwarding.

   Mapping Types:
      There are three different ways to create mappings: implicit
      dynamic mappings, explicit dynamic mappings, and static mappings.
      Implicit dynamic mappings are created as a result of a TCP SYN or
      outgoing UDP packet.  Explicit dynamic mappings are created as a
      result of PCP MAP requests.  Both implicit and explicit dynamic
      mappings are dynamic in the sense that they are created on demand,
      as requested (implicitly or explicitly) by the Internal Host, and
      have a lifetime, after which they are automatically deleted unless
      the lifetime is extended by action by the Internal Host.  Static
      mappings are created by manual configuration (e.g., command
      language interface or web page) and differ from dynamic mappings
      in that their lifetime is typically infinite (they exist until
      manually removed) but otherwise they behave exactly the same as
      dynamic mappings.  For example, a PCP MAP request to create a
      mapping that already exists as a static mapping will return a
      successful result, confirming that the requested mapping exists.

   Port Forwarding, Port Mapping:
      Port forwarding (or port mapping) allows a host to receive traffic
      sent to a specific IP address and port.

      In the context of a NAT or NAPT, the Internal Address and External
      Address are different.  In the context of a pure firewall, the
      Internal Address and External Address are the same.  In both
      contexts, if an internal host is listening to connections on a
      specific port (that is, operating as a server), the external IP
      address and port number need to be port forwarded to the internal
      IP address and port number, which may be the same, in the case of
      a pure firewall.  In the context of a NAPT, it is possible that
      both the IP address and port are modified.  For example with a
      NAPT, a webcam might be listening on port 80 on its internal
      address 192.168.1.1, while its publicly-accessible external
      address is 192.0.2.1 and port is 12345.  The NAT does 'port
      forwarding' of one to the other.



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   PCP Client:
      A PCP software instance responsible for issuing PCP requests to a
      PCP server.  One or several PCP Clients can be embedded in the
      same host.  Several PCP Clients can be located in the same local
      network of a given subscriber.  A PCP Client can issue PCP request
      on behalf of a third party device of the same subscriber.  An
      interworking function, from UPnP IGD to PCP, or from NAT-PMP
      [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] is another example of a PCP Client.  A PCP
      server in a NAT gateway that is itself a client of another NAT
      gateway (nested NAT) may itself act as a PCP client to the
      upstream NAT.

   PCP Server:
      A network element which receives and processes PCP requests from a
      PCP client.  See also Section 4.

   Interworking Function:
      a functional element responsible for interworking another protocol
      with PCP.  For example interworking between UPnP IGD [IGD] with
      PCP or NAT-PMP [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] and PCP.

   subscriber:
      an entity provided access to the network.  In the case of a
      commercial ISP, this is typically a single home.

   host:
      a device which can have packets sent to it, as a result of PCP
      operations.  A host is not necessarily a PCP client.

   5-tuple  The 5 pieces of information that fully identify a flow:
      source IP address, destination IP address, protocol, source port
      number, destination port number.


4.  Relationship of PCP Server and its NAT

   The PCP server receives PCP requests.  The PCP server might be
   integrated within the NAT or firewall device (as shown in Figure 1)
   which is expected to be a common deployment.

                                  +-----------------+
         +------------+           | NAT or firewall |
         | PCP client |-<network>-+      with       +---<Internet>
         +------------+           |    PCP server   |
                                  +-----------------+

            Figure 1: NAT or Firewall with Embedded PCP Server




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   It is also possible to operate the PCP server in a separate device
   from the NAT, so long as such operation is indistinguishable from the
   PCP client's perspective.


5.  Common Request and Response Header Format

   All PCP messages contain a request (or response) header containing an
   opcode, any relevant opcode-specific information, and zero or more
   options.  The packet layout for the common header, and operation of
   the PCP client and PCP server are described in the following
   sections.  The information in this section applies to all OpCodes.
   Behavior of the OpCodes defined in this document is described in
   Section 8 and Section 9.

5.1.  Request Header

   All requests have the following format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |1| Version = 0 |R|   OpCode    |                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
     |                         Reserved (48 bits)                    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :             (optional) opcode-specific information            :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :             (optional) PCP Options                            :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 2: Common Request Packet Format

   These fields are described below:

   1  A single bit set to 1.  This allows DTLS and non-DTLS to be
      multiplexed on same port, should a future update to this
      specification add DTLS support.

   Version:  This document specifies protocol version 0.  Should later
      updates to this document specify different message formats with a
      version number greater than zero, the first two bytes of those new
      message formats will still contain the version number and opcode
      as shown here, so that a PCP server receiving a message format



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


      newer or older than the version(s) it understands can still parse
      enough of the message to correctly identify the version number,
      and determine whether the problem is that this server is too old
      and needs to be updated to work with the PCP client, or whether
      the PCP client is too old and needs to be updated to work with
      this server.

   R: Indicates Request (0) or Response (1).  All Requests MUST use 0.

   OpCode:  Opcodes are defined in Section 8 and Section 9.

   Reserved:  48 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored
      when received.

5.2.  Response Header

   All responses have the following format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |1| Version = 0 |R|   OpCode    |   Reserved    |  Result Code  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         Epoch                                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :             (optional) OpCode-specific response data          :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :             (optional) Options                                :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 3: Common Response Packet Format

   These fields are described below:

   1  A single bit set to 1.

   Ver:  This document specifies protocol version 0.  Should later
      updates to this document specify different message formats with a
      version number greater than zero, the first four bytes of those
      new message formats will still contain the version number, opcode,
      and result code, as shown here, so that a PCP client receiving a
      message format newer or older than the version(s) it understands
      can still parse enough of the message to correctly identify the
      version number, and determine whether the problem is that this
      client is too old and needs to be updated to work with the PCP
      server, or whether the PCP server is too old and needs to be



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


      updated to work with this client.

   R: Indicates Request (0) or Response (1).  All Responses MUST use 1.

   OpCode:  The OpCode value, copied from the request.

   Reserved:  8 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0, MUST be ignored when
      received.  This is set by the server.

   Result Code:  The result code for this response.  See Section 5.4 for
      values.  This is set by the server.

   Epoch:  The server's Epoch value.  See Section 6.5 for discussion.
      This value is set both success and error responses.

5.3.  Options

   A PCP OpCode can be extended with an Option.  Options can be used in
   requests and responses.  It is anticipated that Options will include
   information which are associated with the normal function of an
   OpCode.  For example, an Option could indicate DSCP [RFC2474]
   markings to apply to incoming or outgoing traffic associated with a
   PCP mapping, or an Option could include descriptive text (e.g., "for
   my webcam").

   Options use the following Type-Length-Value format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                       (optional) data                         :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 4: Options Header

   The description of the fields is as follows:

   Option Code:  Option code, 8 bits.  The first bit of the option code
      is the "O" (optional) bit.  If clear, it indicates the option is
      mandatory to process (that is, non-optional).  If set, it
      indicates the option is optional.

   Reserved:  MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
      reception.





Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   Option-Length:  Indicates in units of 4 octets the length of the
      enclosed data.  Options with length of 0 are allowed.

   data:  Option data.  The option data MUST end on a 32 bit boundary,
      padded with 0's when necessary.

   A given Option MAY be included in a request or a response, as
   permitted by that Option.  If a given Option was included in a
   request, and understood and processed by the PCP server, it MUST be
   included in the response.  The handling of an Option by the PCP
   client and PCP server MUST be specified in an appropriate document
   and must include whether the PCP Option can appear (one or more
   times) in a request, and indicate the contents of the Option in the
   request and in the response.  If several Options are included in a
   PCP request or response, they MUST be encoded in numeric order by the
   PCP client and are processed in the order received.  The server MUST
   reject requests that have mis-ordered options with the
   MISORDERED_OPTIONS error, and this also includes checking optional-
   to-process options.

   If, while processing an option, an error is encountered that causes a
   PCP error response to be generated, the PCP request causes no state
   change in the PCP server or the PCP-controlled device (i.e., it rolls
   back any changes it might have made while processing the request).
   The response MUST encode the Options in the same order, but may omit
   some PCP Options in the response, as is necessary to indicate the PCP
   server does not understand that Option or that Option is not
   permitted to be included in responses by the definition of the Option
   itself.  Additional Options included in the response (if any) MUST be
   included at the end.  A certain Option MAY appear more than once in a
   request or in a response, if permitted by the definition of the
   Option itself.  If the Option's definition allows the Option to
   appear once but it appears more than once in a request, the PCP
   server MUST respond with the MALFORMED_OPTION result code; if this
   occurs in a response, the PCP client processes the first occurrence
   and ignores the other occurrences as if they were not present.

   If the "O" bit in the OpCode is clear,

   o  the PCP server MUST only generate a positive PCP response if it
      can successfully process the PCP request and this Option.

   o  if the PCP server does not implement this Option, or cannot
      perform the function indicated by this Option (e.g., due to a
      parsing error with the option), it MUST generate a failure
      response with code UNSUPP_OPTION or MALFORMED_OPTION (as
      appropriate) and include the UNPROCESSED option in the response
      (Section 6.7.1).



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   If the "O" bit is set, the PCP server MAY process or ignore this
   Option, entirely at its discretion.

   To enhance interoperability, newly defined Options SHOULD NOT be
   interdependent with each other.  Option definitions MUST include the
   information below:

      This Option:

         name: <mnemonic>

         number: <value>

         purpose:

         is valid for OpCodes: <list of OpCodes>

         length: <rules for length>

         may appear in: <requests/responses/both>

         maximum occurrences: <count>

5.4.  Result Codes

   The following result codes may be returned as a result of any OpCode
   received by the PCP server.  The only success result code is 0, other
   values indicate an error.  If a PCP server has encountered multiple
   errors during processing of a request, it SHOULD use the most
   specific error message.

   0  SUCCESS, success

   1  MALFORMED_REQUEST, a general catch-all error.

   2  UNSUPP_OPCODE, unsupported OpCode.

   3  UNSUPP_OPTION, unsupported Option.  This error only occurs if the
      Option is in the mandatory-to-process range.

   4  MALFORMED_OPTION, malformed Option (e.g., exists too many times,
      invalid length).

   5  UNSPECIFIED_ERROR, server encountered unspecified error.







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   6  UNSUPP_VERSION, unsupported version.

   7  MISORDERED_OPTIONS, multiple options were in the request, but were
      not in the required lower..higher order.

   Additional result codes, specific to the OpCodes and Options defined
   in this document, are listed in Section 8.2, Section 9.2, and
   Section 10.


6.  General PCP Operation

   PCP messages MUST be sent over UDP, and the PCP server MUST listen
   for PCP requests on the PCP port number, 44323.  Every PCP request
   generates a response, so PCP does not need to run over a reliable
   transport protocol.

   PCP is idempotent, so if the PCP client sends the same request
   multiple times and the PCP server processes those requests, the same
   result occurs.  The order of operation is that a PCP client generates
   and sends a request to the PCP server which processes the request and
   generates a response back to the PCP client.

6.1.  General PCP Client: Generating a Request

   This section details operation specific to a PCP client, for any
   OpCode.  Procedures specific to the MAP OpCodes are described in
   Section 8, and procedures specific to the PEER OpCodes are described
   in Section 9.

   Prior to sending its first PCP message, the PCP client determines
   which servers to use.  The PCP client performs the following steps to
   determine its PCP server(s):

   1.  if a PCP server is configured (e.g., in a configuration file),
       the address(es) of the PCP server(s) used as the list of PCP
       server(s), else;

   2.  if DHCP indicates the PCP server(s), the address(es) of the
       indicated PCP server(s) are used as the the list of PCP
       server(s), else;

   3.  the address of the default router is used as the PCP server.

   With that list of PCP servers, the PCP client formulates its PCP
   request.  The PCP request contains a PCP common header, PCP OpCode
   and payload, and (possibly) Options.  It initializes a retransmission
   timer to 4 seconds.  (As with all UDP or TCP clients on any operating



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   system, when several PCP clients are embedded in the same host, each
   uses a distinct source port number to disambiguate their requests and
   replies.)  The PCP client sends a PCP message to each server in
   sequence, waiting for a response until its timer expires.  Once a PCP
   client has successfully communicated with a PCP server, it continues
   communicating with that PCP server until that PCP server has not
   responded to 5 retransmissions, which causes the PCP client to
   attempt to re-iterate the procedure starting with the first PCP
   server on its list.  If a hard ICMP error is received the PCP client
   SHOULD immediately abort trying to contact that PCP server (see
   Section 2 of [RFC5461] for discussion of ICMP and ICMPv6 hard
   errors).  If no response is received from any of those servers, it
   doubles its retransmission timer and tries each server again.  This
   is repeated 4 times (for a total of 5 transmissions to each server).
   If, after these transmissions, the PCP client has still not received
   a response, the PCP client SHOULD abort the procedure.

   Upon receiving a response (success or error), the PCP client does not
   change to a different PCP server.  That is, it does not "shop around"
   trying to find a PCP server to service its (same) request.

6.2.  General PCP Server: Processing a Request

   This section details operation specific to a PCP server.

   Upon receiving a PCP request message, the PCP server parses and
   validates it.  A valid request contains a valid PCP common header,
   one valid PCP Opcode, and zero or more Options (which the server
   might or might not comprehend).  If an error is encountered during
   processing, the server generates an error response which is sent back
   to the PCP client.  Processing an OpCode and the Options are specific
   to each OpCode.

   If the received message is shorter than 4 octets, has the R bit set,
   or the first bit is clear, the request is simply dropped.  If the
   version number is not supported, a response is generated containing
   the UNSUPP_VERSION response code and the protocol version which the
   server does understand (if the server understands a range of protocol
   versions then it returns the supported version closest to the version
   in the request).

   If the OpCode is not supported, a response is generated with the
   UNSUPP_OPCODE response code.  If the length of the request exceeds
   1024 octets or is not a multiple of 4 octets, it is invalid.  Invalid
   requests are handled by copying up to 1024 octets of the request into
   the response, setting the response code to MALFORMED_REQUEST, and
   zero-padding the response to a multiple of 4 octets if necessary.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   Error responses have the same packet layout as success responses,
   with fields copied from the request copied into the response, and
   other fields assigned by the PCP server MUST be cleared to 0.

6.3.  General PCP Client: Processing a Response

   The PCP client receives the response and verifies the source IP
   address and port belong to the PCP server of an outstanding request.
   It validates the version number and OpCode matches an outstanding
   request.  Responses shorter than 12 octets, longer than 1024 octets,
   or not a multiple of 4 octets are invalid and ignored, likely causing
   the request to be re-transmitted.  The response is further matched by
   comparing fields in the response OpCode-specific data to fields in
   the request OpCode-specific data.  After a successful match with an
   outstanding request, the PCP client checks the Epoch field to
   determine if it needs to restore its state to the PCP server (see
   Section 6.5).

   If the response code is 0, the PCP client knows the request was
   successful.

   If the response code is not 0, the request failed.  If the response
   code is UNSUPP_VERSION, processing continues as described in
   Section 6.6.  If the response code is SERVER_OVERLOADED, clients
   SHOULD NOT send *any* further requests to that PCP server for the
   time indicated by that OpCode's response, if present (e.g., the
   lifetime field of a MAP response), or 30 seconds have elapsed.  For
   other error response codes, The PCP client SHOULD NOT resend the same
   request for the time indicated by that OpCode's response, if present
   (e.g., the lifetime field of a MAP response), or 30 seconds have
   elapsed.

   If the PCP client has discovered a new PCP server (e.g., connected to
   a new network), the PCP client MAY immediately begin communicating
   with this PCP server, without regard to hold times from communicating
   with a previous PCP server.

6.4.  Multi-Interface Issues

   Hosts which desire a PCP mapping might be multi-interfaced (i.e., own
   several logical/physical interfaces).  Indeed, a host can be
   configured with several IPv4 addresses (e.g., WiFi and Ethernet) or
   dual-stacked.  These IP addresses may have distinct reachability
   scopes (e.g., if IPv6 they might have global reachability scope as
   for GUA (Global Unicast Address) or limited scope such as ULA (Unique
   Local Address, [RFC4193])).

   IPv6 addresses with global reachability scope SHOULD be used as the



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   source interface when generating a PCP request.  IPv6 addresses with
   limited scope (e.g., ULA [RFC4193]), SHOULD NOT be used as the source
   interface when generating a PCP request.  If IPv6 privacy addresses
   [RFC4941] are used for PCP mappings, a new PCP request will need to
   be issued whenever the IPv6 privacy address is changed.  This PCP
   request SHOULD be sent from the IPv6 privacy address itself.  It is
   RECOMMENDED that mappings to the previous privacy address be deleted.

   Due to the ubiquity of IPv4 NAT, IPv4 addresses with limited scope
   (e.g., [RFC1918]) MAY be used as the source interface when generating
   a PCP request.

   As mentioned in Section 2.3, only single-homed CP routers are in
   scope.  Therefore, there is no viable scenario where a host located
   behind a CP router is assigned with two GUA addresses belonging to
   the same global IPv6 prefix.

6.5.  Epoch

   Every PCP response sent by the PCP server includes an Epoch field.
   This field increments by 1 every second, and indicates to the PCP
   client if PCP state needs to be restored.  If the PCP server resets
   or loses the state of its explicit dynamic Mappings (that is, those
   mappings created by PCP MAP requests), due to reboot, power failure,
   or any other reason, it MUST reset its Epoch time to 0.  Similarly,
   if the public IP address(es) of the NAT (controlled by the PCP
   server) changes, the Epoch MUST be reset to 0.  A PCP server MAY
   maintain one Epoch value for all PCP clients, or MAY maintain
   distinct Epoch values for each PCP client; this choice is
   implementation-dependent.

   Whenever a client receives a PCP response, the client computes its
   own conservative estimate of the expected Epoch value by taking the
   Epoch value in the last packet it received from the gateway and
   adding 7/8 (87.5%) of the time elapsed since that packet was
   received.  If the Epoch value in the newly received packet is less
   than the client's conservative estimate by more than one second, then
   the client concludes that the PCP server lost state, and the client
   MUST immediately renew all its active port mapping leases as
   described in Section 8.9.1.

   When the PCP server reduces its Epoch value, the PCP clients will
   send PCP requests to refresh their mappings.  The PCP server needs to
   be scaled appropriately to accomodate this traffic.  Because PCP
   lacks a mechanism to simultaneously inform all PCP clients of the
   Epoch value, the PCP clients will not flood the PCP server
   simultaneously when the PCP server reduces its Epoch value.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


6.6.  Version negotiation

   A PCP client sends its requests using PCP version number 0.  Should
   later updates to this document specify different message formats with
   a version number greater than zero it is expected that PCP servers
   will still support version 0 in addition to the newer version(s).
   However, in the event that a server returns a response with error
   code UNSUPP_VERSION, the client MAY log an error message to inform
   the user that it is too old to work with this server, and the client
   SHOULD set a timer to retry its request in 30 minutes (in case this
   was a temporary condition and the server configuration is changed to
   rectify the situation).

   If future PCP versions greater than zero are specified, version
   negotiation is expected to proceed as follows:

   1.  If a client or server supports more than one version it SHOULD
       support a contiguous range of versions -- i.e., a lowest version
       and a highest version and all versions in between.

   2.  Client sends first request using highest (i.e., presumably
       'best') version number it supports.

   3.  If server supports that version it responds normally.

   4.  If server does not support that version it replies giving a
       response containing the error code UNSUPP_VERSION, and the
       closest version number it does support (if the server supports a
       range of versions higher than the client's requested version, the
       server returns the lowest of that supported range; if the server
       supports a range of versions lower than the client's requested
       version, the server returns the highest of that supported range).

   5.  If the client receives an UNSUPP_VERSION response containing a
       version it does support, it records this fact and proceeds to use
       this message version for subsequent communication with this PCP
       server (until a possible future UNSUPP_VERSION response if the
       server is later updated, at which point the version negotiation
       process repeats).

   6.  If the client receives an UNSUPP_VERSION response containing a
       version it does not support then the client MAY log an error
       message to inform the user that it is too old to work with this
       server, and the client SHOULD set a timer to retry its request in
       30 minutes.






Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


6.7.  General PCP Options

   The following options can appear in certain PCP responses.

6.7.1.  UNPROCESSED

   If the PCP server cannot process a mandatory-to-process option, for
   whatever reason, it includes the UNPROCESSED Option in the response,
   shown in Figure 5.  This helps with debugging interactions between
   the PCP client and PCP server.  For simplicity, no more than 4
   options can be encoded.  This option MUST NOT appear more than once
   in a PCP response, no matter how many PCP options appeared in the
   request and were unprocessed by the PCP server.  If only one Option
   code was unprocessed, that option code it is placed in option-code-1
   (and the other three fields are set to zero), if two Option codes
   were unprocessed, their option codes are placed in option-code-1 and
   option-code-2, and so on.  If a certain Option appeared more than
   once in the PCP request, that Option value only appears once in the
   option-code fields.  The order of the Options in the PCP request has
   no relationship with the order of the Option values in this
   UNPROCESSED Option.  This Option MUST NOT appear in a response unless
   the associated request contained at least one mandatory-to-process
   Option.  This Option MUST NOT appear more than once.

   The UNPROCESSED option is formatted as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | option-code-1 | option-code-2 | option-code-3 | option-code-4 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | option-code-5 | option-code-6 | option-code-7 | option-code-8 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 5: UNPROCESSED option

      This Option:

         name: UNPROCESSED

         number: 1

         purpose: indicates which PCP options in the request are not
         supported by the PCP server

         is valid for OpCodes: all





Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


         length: 1

         may appear in: responses, and only if the response code is non-
         zero.

         maximum occurrences: 1


7.  Introduction to MAP and PEER OpCodes

   There are three uses for the MAP and PEER OpCodes defined in this
   document: a host operating a server (and wanting an incoming
   connection), a host operating a client (and wanting to optimize the
   application keepalive traffic), and a host operating a client and
   server on the same port.  These are discussed in the following
   sections.

   When operating a server (Section 7.1 and Section 7.3) the PCP client
   knows if it wants an IPv4 listener, IPv6 listener, or both on the
   Internet.  The PCP client also knows if it has an IPv4 interface on
   itself or an IPv6 interface on itself.  It takes the union of this
   knowledge to decide to send a one or two MAP requests for each of its
   interfaces.  Applications that embed IP addresses in payloads (e.g.,
   FTP, SIP) will find it beneficial to avoid address family
   translation, if possible.

7.1.  For Operating a Server

   A host operating a server (e.g., a web server) listens for traffic on
   a port, but the server never initiates traffic from that port.  For
   this to work across a NAT or a firewall, the application needs to (a)
   create a mapping from a public IP address and port to itself as
   described in Section 8 and (b) publish that public IP address and
   port via some sort of rendezvous server (e.g., DNS, a SIP message, a
   proprietary protocol).  Publishing the public IP address and port is
   out of scope of this specification.  To accomplish (a), the
   application follows the procedures described in this section.

   As normal, the application needs to begin listening to a port, and to
   ensure that it can get exclusive use of that port it needs to choose
   a port that is not in the operating system's ephemeral port range.
   Then, the application constructs a PCP message with the appropriate
   MAP OpCode depending on if it is listening on an IPv4 or IPv6
   interface and if it wants a public IPv4 or IPv6 address.







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   The following pseudo-code shows how PCP can be reliably used to
   operate a server:

   /* start listening on the local server port */
   int s = socket(...);
   internal_sockaddr = ...;
   bind(s, &internal_sockaddr, ...);
   listen(s, ...);
   requested_external_sockaddr = 0;
   pcp_send_map_request(internal_sockaddr,
      requested_external_sockaddr, &assigned_external_sockaddr,
      requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime);
   update_rendezvous_server("Client 12345", assigned_external_sockaddr);
   while (1) {
       int c = accept(s, ...);
       /* ... */
   }

          Figure 6: Pseudo-code for using PCP to operate a server

7.2.  For Reducing NAT Keepalive Messages

   A host operating a client (e.g., XMPP client, SIP client) sends from
   a port but never accepts incoming connections on this port.  It wants
   to ensure the flow to its server is not terminated (due to
   inactivity) by an on-path NAT or firewall.  To accomplish this, the
   applications uses the procedure described in this section.

   Middleboxes such as NATs or firewalls need to see occasional traffic
   or will terminate their session state, causing application failures.
   To avoid this, many applications routinely generate keepalive traffic
   for the primary (or sole) purpose of maintaining state with such
   middleboxes.  Applications can reduce such application keepalive
   traffic by using PCP.

      Note: For reasons beyond NAT, an application may find it useful to
      perform application-level keepalives, such as to detect a broken
      path between the client and server, detect a crashed server, or
      detect a powered-down client.  These keepalives are not related to
      maintaining middlebox state, and PCP cannot do anything useful to
      reduce those keepalives.

   To use PCP for this function, the applications first connects to its
   server, as normal.  Afterwards, it issues a PCP request with the
   PEER4 or PEER6 OpCode as described in Section 9.  The PEER4 OpCode is
   used if the host is using IPv4 for its communication to its peer;
   PEER6 if using IPv6.  The same 5-tuple as used for the connection to
   the server is placed into the PEER4 or PEER6 payload.



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   The following pseudo-code shows how PCP can be reliably used with a
   dynamic socket, for the purposes of reducing application keepalive
   messages:

         int s = socket(...);
         connect(s, &remote_peer, ...);
         getsockname(s, &internal_address, ...);
         external_address = 0;
         pcp_send_peer_request(internal_address,
            requested_external_address, &assigned_external_address,
            remote_peer, requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime);

           Figure 7: Pseudo-code using PCP with a dynamic socket

7.3.  For Operating a Symmetric Client/Server

   A host operating a client and server on the same port (e.g.,
   Symmetric RTP [RFC4961] or SIP Symmetric Response Routing (rport)
   [RFC3581]) first establishes a local listener, (usually) sends the
   local and public IP addresses and ports to a rendezvous service
   (which is out of scope of this document), and (usually) initiates
   outbound connections from that same source address.  To accomplish
   this, the application uses the procedure described in this section.

   An application that is using the same port for outgoing connections
   as well as incoming connections MUST first signal its operation of a
   server using the PCP MAP OpCode, as described in Section 8, and
   receive a positive PCP response before it sends any packets from that
   port.

      Discussion: Although reversing those steps is tempting (to
      eliminate the PCP round trip before a packet can be sent from that
      port) and will work if the NAT has endpoint-independent mappings
      (EIM) behavior, reversing the steps will fail if the NAT does not
      have EIM behavior.  With a non-EIM NAT, the implicit mapping
      created by an outgoing TCP SYN and the explicit mapping created
      using the MAP OpCode will cause different ports to be assigned
      (which is not desirable; after all, the application is using the
      same port for outgoing and incoming traffic on purpose) and they
      will generally also have different lifetimes.  PCP does not
      attempt to change or dictate how a NAT creates its mappings
      (endpoint independent mapping, or otherwise) so there is no
      assurance that an implicit mapping will be EIM or non-EIM.  Thus,
      it is necessary for applications to first signal its operation of
      a server using the PCP MAP OpCode.






Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   The following pseudo-code shows how PCP can be used to operate a
   symmetric client and server:

   /* start listening on the local server port */
   int s = socket(...);
   internal_sockaddr = ...;
   bind(s, &internal_sockaddr, ...);
   listen(s, ...);
   requested_external_sockaddr = 0;
   pcp_send_map_request(internal_sockaddr,
      requested_external_sockaddr, &assigned_external_sockaddr,
      requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime);
   update_rendezvous_server("Client 12345", assigned_external_sockaddr);
   send_packet(s, "Hello World");
   while (1) {
       int c = accept(s, ...);
       /* ... */
   }

    Figure 8: Pseudo-code for using PCP to operate a symmetric client/
                                  server


8.  MAP OpCodes

   This section defines four OpCodes which control forwarding from a NAT
   (or firewall) to an internal target host.  They are:

    MAP4=0:   create a mapping between an internal target address and
              external IPv4 address (e.g., NAT44, NAT64, or firewall)

    MAP6=1:   create a mapping between an internal target address and
              external IPv6 address (e.g., NAT46, NAT66, or firewall)

   The internal target address is the source IP address of the PCP
   request message itself, unless the THIRD_PARTY option is used.

   The operation of these OpCodes is described in this section.

8.1.  OpCode Packet Formats

   The two MAP OpCodes (MAP4, MAP6) share a similar packet layout for
   both requests and responses.  Because of this similarity, they are
   shown together.  For both of the MAP OpCodes, if the assigned
   external IP address and assigned external port both match the
   request's source IP address and MAP OpCode's internal IP address, the
   functionality is purely a firewall; otherwise it pertains to a
   network address translator which might also perform firewall



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   functions.

   The following diagram shows the request packet format for MAP4 and
   MAP6.  This packet format is aligned with the response packet format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Protocol     |          Reserved (24 bits)                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     : Requested external IP address (32 or 128, depending on OpCode):
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Requested Lifetime                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |        internal port          |   requested external port     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 9: MAP OpCode Request Packet Format

   These fields are described below:

   Protocol:  indicates protocol associated with this OpCode.  Values
      are taken from the IANA protocol registry [proto_numbers].  For
      example, this field contains 6 (TCP) if the opcode is intended to
      create a TCP mapping.  The value 0 means "all protocols"
      (supported by the PCP server), which is useful to create mappings
      for all protocols with a Basic NAT [RFC3022] or a firewall, and
      used to delete mappings for all protocols.

   Reserved:  24 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored
      when received.

   Requested External IP Address:  Requested external IP address.  This
      is useful for refreshing a mapping, especially after the PCP
      server loses state.  If the PCP server can fulfill the request, it
      will do so.  If the PCP client does not know the external address,
      or does not have a preference, it MUST use 0.

   Requested lifetime:  Requested lifetime of this mapping, in seconds.

   Internal port:  Internal port for the mapping.  The value 0 MUST NOT
      be sent.







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   Requested external port:  requested external port for the mapping.
      This is useful for refreshing a mapping, especially after the PCP
      server loses state.  If the PCP server can fulfill the request, it
      will do so.  If the PCP client does not know the external port, or
      does not have a preference, it uses 0.

   The following diagram shows the response packet format for MAP4 and
   MAP6 OpCodes:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Protocol     |          Reserved (24 bits)                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     : Assigned external IP address (32 or 128, depending on OpCode) :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                         Lifetime                              :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       internal port           |    assigned external port     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 10: MAP OpCode Response Packet Format

   These fields are described below:

   Protocol:  Copied from the request

   Reserved:  24 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored
      when received.

   Assigned external IP address:  On success responses, this is the
      assigned external IPv4 or IPv6 address for the mapping; IPv4 or
      IPv6 address is indicated by the OpCode.  On error responses, this
      MUST be 0.

   Lifetime:  On a success response, this indicates the lifetime for
      this mapping, in seconds.  On an error response, this indicates
      how long clients should assume they'll get the same error response
      from the that PCP server if they repeat the same request.

   Internal port:  Internal port for the mapping, copied from request.

   Assigned external port:  On success responses, this is the assigned
      external port for the mapping.  IPv4 or IPv6 address is indicated
      by the OpCode.  If the NAT gateway can allocate the requested
      external port it SHOULD do so.  This is beneficial for re-



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


      establishing state lost when a NAT gateway fails or loses its
      state due to reboot.  If the NAT gateway cannot allocate the
      requested external port but can allocate some other port, it MUST
      do so and return the allocated port in the response.  Cases where
      a NAT gateway cannot allocate the requested external port include
      when the requested external port is prohibited by policy, already
      used by the NAT gateway for one of its own services (e.g., port 80
      for the NAT gateway's own configuration pages) already allocated
      to another explicit mapping (by static manual allocation or by a
      prior PCP request by a different Internal Host) or the rare case
      where the requested external port was already allocated to an
      implicit mapping which cannot be 'promoted' to an explicit mapping
      for this Internal Host (a different Internal Host already made a
      prior outbound connection for which the NAT gateway happened to
      assign the external port requested in this explicit PCP request).
      On error responses, this MUST be 0.

8.2.  OpCode-Specific Result Codes

   In addition to the general PCP result codes (Section 5.4), the
   following additional result codes may be returned as a result of the
   four MAP OpCodes received by the PCP server.  These errors are
   considered 'long lifetime' or 'short lifetime', which provides
   guidance to PCP server developers for the value of the Lifetime field
   for these errors.  It is RECOMMENDED that short lifetime errors use
   30 second lifetime and long lifetime errors use 30 minute lifetime.

   19 SERVER_OVERLOADED, server is processing too many MAP requests from
      this client or from other clients, and requests this client delay
      sending other requests.  This is a short lifetime error.

   20 NETWORK_FAILURE, e.g., NAT device has not obtained a DHCP lease so
      cannot perform a MAP operation.  This is a short lifetime error.

   21 NO_RESOURCES, e.g., NAT device cannot create more mappings at this
      time.  This is a system-wide error, and different from
      USER_EX_QUOTA.  This is a short lifetime error.

   22 UNSUPP_PROTOCOL, unsupported Protocol.  This is a long lifetime
      error.

   23 NOT_AUTHORIZED, e.g., PCP server supports mapping, but the feature
      is disabled for this PCP client, or the PCP client requested a
      mapping that cannot be fulfilled by the PCP server's security
      policy.  This is a long lifetime error.






Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   24 USER_EX_QUOTA, mapping would exceed user's port quota.  This is a
      short lifetime error.

   25 CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL_PORT, indicates the port is already in use
      or otherwise unavailable (e.g., special port that cannot be
      allocated by the server's policy).  This error is only returned if
      the request included the Option PREFER_FAILURE.  This is a short
      lifetime error.

   26 UNABLE_TO_DELETE_ALL, indicates the PCP server was not able to
      delete all mappings.  This is a short lifetime error.

   Additional result codes may be returned if the THIRD_PARTY option is
   used, see Section 10.

8.3.  OpCode-Specific Client: Generating a Request

   This section describes the operation of a PCP client when sending
   requests with OpCodes MAP4 and MAP6.

   The request MAY contain values in the requested-external-ip-address
   and requested-external-port fields.  This allows the PCP client to
   attempt to rebuild the PCP server's state, so that the PCP client
   could avoid having to change information maintained at the rendezvous
   server.  Of course, due to other activity on the network (e.g., by
   other users or network renumbering), the PCP server may not be able
   to fulfill the request.

   An existing mapping can have its lifetime extended by the PCP client.
   To do this, the PCP client sends a new MAP request indicating the
   internal IP address and port(s).

   The PCP client SHOULD renew the mapping before its expiry time,
   otherwise it will be removed by the PCP server (see Section 8.6).  In
   order to prevent excessive PCP chatter, it is RECOMMENDED to send a
   single renewal request packet when a mapping is halfway to expiration
   time, then, if no positive response is received, another single
   renewal request 3/4 of the way to expiration time, and then another
   at 7/8 of the way to expiration time, and so on, subject to the
   constraint that renewal requests MUST NOT be sent less than four
   seconds apart (a PCP client MUST NOT send an infinite number of ever-
   closer-together requests in the last few seconds before a mapping
   expires).

8.4.  OpCode-Specific Server: Processing a Request

   This section describes the operation of a PCP server when processing
   a request with the OpCodes MAP4 or MAP6.



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   If the server is overloaded by requests (from a particular client or
   from all clients), it MAY simply discard requests, as the requests
   will be retried by PCP clients, or MAY generate the SERVER_OVERLOADED
   error response, or both.

   If the request contains internal-port=0, the server MUST generate a
   MALFORMED_REQUEST error.

   If the requested lifetime is 0, it indicates a request to delete the
   mapping immediately.  On a deletion request, the requested external
   port field is ignored by the server.  PCP MAP requests only control
   mappings created by MAP requests.  So, if the PCP client attempts to
   delete a static mapping (i.e., a mapping created outside of PCP
   itself), the PCP server deletes all of the PCP-created mappings but
   MUST respond with UNABLE_TO_DELETE_ALL result code, with the other
   fields encoded as described above.  If the PCP client attempts to
   delete a mapping that does not exist, the success response code is
   returned.  If the PCP client is not authorized to delete this
   mapping, NOT_AUTHORIZED is returned.  If the deletion request was
   properly formatted, a positive response is generated with lifetime of
   0 and the server copies the protocol and internal port number from
   the request into the response; this positive response is generated
   even if there is no mapping (because the mapping could have been
   already deleted by a previous PCP transaction).

   If the requested lifetime is not zero, it indicates a request to
   create a mapping or extend the lifetime of an existing mapping.

   Processing of the lifetime is described in Section 8.6.

   If the PCP-controlled device is stateless (that is, it does not
   establish any per-flow state, and simply rewrites the address and/or
   port in a purely algorithmic fashion), the PCP server simply returns
   an answer indicating the external IP address and port yielded by this
   stateless algorithmic translation.  This allows the PCP client to
   learn its external IP address and port as seen by remote peers.
   Examples of stateless translators include stateless NAT64 and 1:1
   NAT44, both of which modify addresses but not port numbers.

   If an Option with value greater than 128 exists but that option does
   not make sense (e.g., the PREFER_FAILURE option is included in a
   request with lifetime=0), the request is invalid and generates a
   MALFORMED_OPTION error.

   By default, a PCP-controlled device MUST NOT create mappings for a
   protocol not indicated in the request.  For example, if the request
   was for a TCP mapping, a UDP mapping MUST NOT be created.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   If the THIRD_PARTY option is not present in the request, the source
   IP address of the PCP packet is used when creating the mapping.  If
   the THIRD_PARTY option is present, the PCP server validates the
   indicated target IP address belongs to the same subscriber.  This
   validation depends on the PCP deployment scenario; see Section 13.3
   for the validation procedure.  If the internal IP address in the PCP
   request does not belong to the subscriber, an error response MUST be
   generated with result code NOT_AUTHORIZED.

   Mappings typically consume state on the PCP-controlled device, and it
   is RECOMMENDED that a per-subscriber or per-host limit be enforced by
   the PCP server to prevent exhausting the mapping state.  If this
   limit is exceeded, the response code USER_EX_QUOTA is returned.

   If all of the proceeding operations were successful (did not generate
   an error response), then the requested mappings are created as
   described in the request and a positive response is built.  This
   positive result contains the same OpCode as the request, but with the
   "R" bit set.

   As a side-effect of creating a mapping, ICMP messages associated with
   the mapping MUST be forwarded (and also translated, if appropriate)
   for the duration of the mapping's lifetime.  This is done to ensure
   that ICMP messages can still be used by hosts, without application
   programmers or PCP client implementations needing to signal PCP
   separately to create ICMP mappings for those flows.

8.5.  OpCode-Specific Client: Processing a Response

   This section describes the operation of the PCP client when it
   receives a PCP response for the OpCodes MAP4 or MAP6.

   A response is matched with a request by comparing the protocol,
   internal IP address, and internal port.  Other fields are not
   compared, because the PCP server sets those fields.

   If a successful response, the PCP client can use the external IP
   address and port(s) as desired.  Typically the PCP client will
   communicate the external IP address and port(s) to another host on
   the Internet using an application-specific rendezvous mechanism such
   as DNS SRV records.

   If the response code is IMPLICIT_MAPPING_EXISTS, it indicates the PCP
   client is attempting to use MAP when an implicit dynamic connection
   already exists for the same internal host and internal port.  This
   can occur with certain types of NATs.  When this is received, if the
   PCP client still wants to establish a mapping, the PCP client MUST
   choose a different internal port and send a new PCP request



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   specifying that port.

   On an error response, clients SHOULD NOT repeat the same request to
   the same PCP server within the lifetime returned in the response.

8.6.  Mapping Lifetime and Deletion

   The PCP client requests a certain lifetime, and the PCP server
   responds with the assigned lifetime.  The PCP server MAY grant a
   lifetime smaller or larger than the requested lifetime.  The PCP
   server SHOULD be configurable for permitted minimum and maximum
   lifetime, and the RECOMMENDED values are 120 seconds for the minimum
   value and 24 hours for the maximum.  It is NOT RECOMMENDED that the
   server allow lifetimes exceeding 24 hours, because they will consume
   ports even if the internal host is no longer interested in receiving
   the traffic or no longer connected to the network.

   Once a PCP server has responded positively to a mapping request for a
   certain lifetime, the port forwarding is active for the duration of
   the lifetime unless the lifetime is reduced by the PCP client (to a
   shorter lifetime or to zero) or until the PCP server loses its state
   (e.g., crashes).  However, if the PCP lifetime has reached zero yet
   there is still active inside-to-outside traffic, the PCP server MAY,
   if it desires, keep the mapping active until the inside-to-outside
   traffic has stopped.

   An application that forgets its PCP-assigned mappings (e.g., the
   application or OS crashes) will request new PCP mappings.  This will
   consume port mappings.  The application will also likely initiate new
   implicit dynamic mappings (e.g., TCP connections) without using PCP,
   which will also consume port mappings.  If there is a port mapping
   quota for the internal host, frequent restarts such as this may
   exhaust the quota.  PCP provides no explicit protection against such
   port consumption.  In such environments, it is RECOMMENDED that
   applications use shorter PCP lifetimes to reduce the impact of
   consuming the user's port quota.  An operating system or framework
   that issues a mapping request to "delete all" (protocol=0, port=0,
   lifetime=0) on reboot protects itself against this resource
   exhaustion by voluntarily relinquishing all of its old mappings
   before beginning to request new ones.  The PCP server MAY chose to
   allocate the same (recently relinquished) mappings when mappings are
   re-requested by the booting OS.  Some port mapping APIs (such as the
   "DNSServiceNATPortMappingCreate" API provided by Apple's Bonjour on
   Mac OS X, iOS, Windows, Linux, etc.) automatically monitor for
   process exit (including application crashes) and automatically send
   port mapping deletion requests if the process that requested them
   goes away without explicitly relinquishing them.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   In order to reduce unwanted traffic and data corruption, a port that
   was mapped using the MAP OpCode SHOULD NOT be assigned to another
   internal target, or another subscriber, for 120 seconds (MSL,
   [RFC0793]).  However, the PCP server MUST allow the same internal
   target to re-acquire the same port during that same interval.

   When a PCP client first acquires a new IP address, it may want to
   remove mappings that may have been instantiated for a previous host.
   To do this, the PCP client sends a MAP request with protocol,
   external port, internal port, and lifetime set to 0.

8.7.  Subscriber Renumbering

   The customer premises router might obtain a new IPv4 address or new
   IPv6 prefix.  This can occur because of a variety of reasons
   including a reboot, power outage, DHCP lease expiry, or other action
   by the ISP.  If this occurs, traffic forwarded to the subscriber
   might be delivered to another customer who now has that address.
   This affects both implicit dynamic mappings and explicit dynamic
   mappings.  However, this same problem occurs today when a
   subscriber's IP address is re-assigned, without PCP and without an
   ISP-operated CGN.  The solution is the same as today: the problems
   associated with subscriber renumbering are caused by subscriber
   renumbering and are eliminated if subscriber renumbering is avoided.
   PCP defined in this document does not provide machinery to reduce the
   subscriber renumbering problem.

   When a new Internal Address is assigned to a host embedding a PCP
   client, the NAT (or firewall) controlled by the PCP server will
   continue to send traffic to the old IP address.  Assuming the PCP
   client wants to continue receiving traffic, it needs to install new
   mappings for its new IP address.  The requested external port field
   will not be fulfilled by the PCP server, in all likelihood, because
   it is still being forwarded to the old IP address.  Thus, a mapping
   is likely to be assigned a new external port number and/or public IP
   address.  Note that this scenario is not expected to happen routinely
   on a regular basis for most hosts, since most hosts renew their DHCP
   leases before they expire (or re-request the same address after
   reboot) and most DHCP servers honor such requests and grant the host
   the same address it was previously using before the reboot.

8.8.  PCP Options for MAP OpCodes

8.8.1.  REMOTE_PEER_FILTER

   This Option indicates packet filtering is desired.  The remote peer
   port and remote peer IP Address indicate the permitted remote peer's
   source IP address and port for packets from the Internet.  The remote



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   peer prefix length indicates the length of the remote peer's IP
   address that is significant; this allows a single Option to permit an
   entire subnet.  After processing this MAP request and generating a
   successful response, the PCP-controlled device will simply drop
   packets with a source IP address, transport, or port that do not
   match the fields.

   The REMOTE_PEER_FILTER packet layout is described below:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    Reserved   | prefix-length |      Remote Peer Port         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :     Remote Peer IP address (32 bits if MAP4,                  :
     :              1 28 bits if MAP6)                               :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 11: REMOTE_PEER_FILTER option layout

   These fields are described below:

   Reserved:  8 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored
      when received.

   prefix-length:  indicates how many bits of the IPv4 or IPv6 address
      are relevant for this filter.  The value 0 indicates "no filter",
      and will remove all previous filters.  See below for detail.

   Remote Peer Port:  the port number of the remote peer.  The value 0
      indicates "all ports"

   Remote Peer IP address:  The IP address of the remote peer.

   This Option:

      name: REMOTE_PEER_FILTER

      number: 2

      is valid for OpCodes: MAP4, MAP6

      is included in responses: MUST, if it appeared in the request

      length: 2 if used with MAP4, 5 if used with MAP6




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


      may appear in: requests

      maximum occurrences: as many as fit within maximum PCP message
      size

   Because of interactions with dynamic ports this Option MUST only be
   used by a client that is operating a server (that is, using the MAP
   OpCode), as this ensures that no other application will be assigned
   the same ephemeral port for its outgoing connection.  Other use by a
   PCP client is NOT RECOMMENDED and will cause some UNSAF NAT traversal
   mechanisms [RFC3424] to fail where they would have otherwise
   succeeded, breaking other applications running on this same host.

   The prefix-length indicates how many bits of the IPv6 address or IPv4
   address are used for the filter.  For MAP4, a prefix-length of 32
   indicates the entire IPv4 address is used.  For MAP6, a prefix-length
   of 128 indicates the entire IPv6 address is used.  For MAP4 the
   minimum prefix-length value is 0 and the maximum value is 32.  For
   MAP6 the minimum prefix-length value is 0 and the maximum value is
   128.  Values outside those range cause an MALFORMED_OPTION response
   code.

   If multiple occurrences of REMOTE_PEER_FILTER exist in the same MAP
   request, they are processed in the same order received, and they MUST
   all be successfully processed or return an error (e.g.,
   MALFORMED_OPTION if one of the options was malformed).  As with other
   PCP errors, returning an error causes no state to be changed in the
   PCP server or in the PCP-controlled device.  If an existing mapping
   exists (with or without a filter) and the server receives a MAP
   request with REMOTE_PEER_FILTER, the filters indicated in the new
   request are added to any existing filters.  If a MAP request has a
   lifetime of 0 and contains the REMOTE_PEER_FILTER option, the error
   MALFORMED_OPTION is returned.

   To remove all existing filters, the prefix-length 0 is used.  There
   is no mechanism to remove a specific filter.

   To change an existing filter, the PCP client sends a MAP request
   containing two REMOTE_PEER_FILTER options, the first option
   containing a prefix-length of 0 (to delete all existing filters) and
   the second containing the new remote peer's IP address and port.
   Other REMOTE_PEER_FILTER options in that PCP request, if any, add
   more allowed remote hosts.

   The PCP server or the PCP-controlled device is expected to have a
   limit on the number of remote peers it can support.  This limit might
   be as small as one.  If a MAP request would exceed this limit, the
   entire MAP request is rejected with the result code



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   EXCESSIVE_REMOTE_PEERS, and the state on the PCP server is unchanged.

   If this option appears in a request, the following addition result
   code could be returned:

   27 EXCESSIVE_REMOTE_PEERS, indicates the PCP server was not able to
      create the filters in this request.  This result code MUST only be
      returned if the MAP request contained the REMOTE_PEER_FILTER
      Option.  This is a long lifetime error.

8.8.2.  PREFER_FAILURE

   This option indicates that if the PCP server is unable to allocate
   the requested port, then instead of returning an available port that
   it *can* allocate, the PCP server should instead allocate no port and
   return result code CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL_PORT.

   This option is intended solely for use by UPnP IGD interworking
   [I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking], where the semantics of IGD
   version 1 do not provide any way to indicate to an IGD client that
   any port is available other than the one it requested.  A PCP server
   MAY support this option, if its designers wish to support downstream
   devices that perform IGD interworking.  PCP servers MAY choose to
   rate-limit their handling of PREFER_FAILURE requests, to protect
   themselves from a rapid flurry of 65535 consecutive PREFER_FAILURE
   requests from clients probing to discover which external ports are
   available.  PCP servers that are not intended to support downstream
   devices that perform IGD interworking are not required to support
   this option.  PCP clients other than IGD interworking clients SHOULD
   NOT use this option because it results in inefficient operation, and
   they cannot safely assume that all PCP servers will implement it.
   The option is provided only because the semantics of IGD version 1
   offer no viable alternative way to implement an IGD interworking
   function.  It is anticipated that this option will be deprecated in
   the future as more clients adopt PCP natively and the need for IGD
   interworking declines.

      This Option:

         name: PREFER_FAILURE

         number: 3

         is valid for OpCodes: MAP4, MAP6

         is included in responses: MUST





Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 34]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


         length: 0

         may appear in: requests

         maximum occurrences: no

8.8.3.  THIRD_PARTY

   The THIRD_PARTY option is used by both the MAP OpCode and the PEER
   OpCode, and defined in Section 10.

8.9.  PCP Mapping State Maintenance

   If an event occurs that causes the PCP server to lose state (such as
   a crash or power outage), the mappings created by PCP are lost.  Such
   loss of state is rare in a service provider environment (due to
   redundant power, disk drives for storage, etc.).  But such loss of
   state is more common in a residential NAT device which does not write
   information to its non-volatile memory.

   The Epoch allows a client to deduce when a PCP server may have lost
   its state.  If this occurs, the PCP client can attempt to recreate
   the mappings following the procedures described in this section.

8.9.1.  Recreating Mappings

   The PCP server SHOULD store mappings in persistent storage so when it
   is powered off or rebooted, it remembers the port mapping state of
   the network.  Due to the physical architecture of some PCP servers,
   this is not always achievable (e.g., some non-volatile memory can
   withstand only a certain number of writes, so writing PCP mappings to
   such memory is generally avoided).

   However, maintaining this state is not essential for correct
   operation.  When the PCP server loses state and begins processing new
   PCP messages, its Epoch is reset to zero (per the procedure of
   Section 6.5).

   A mapping renewal packet is formatted identically to an original
   mapping request; from the point of view of the client it is a renewal
   of an existing mapping, but from the point of view of the PCP server
   it appears as a new mapping request.

   As the result of receiving a packet where the Epoch field indicates
   that a reboot or similar loss of state has occurred, the client
   renews its port mappings.

   The discussion in this section focuses on recreating inbound port



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 35]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   mappings after loss of PCP server state, because that is the more
   serious problem.  Losing port mappings for outgoing connections
   destroys those currently active connections, but does not prevent
   clients from establishing new outgoing connections.  In contrast,
   losing inbound port mappings not only destroys all existing inbound
   connections, but also prevents the reception of any new inbound
   connections until the port mapping is recreated.  Accordingly, we
   consider recovery of inbound port mappings the more important
   priority.  However, clients that want outgoing connections to survive
   a NAT gateway reboot can also achieve that using PCP.  After
   initiating an outbound TCP connection (which will cause the NAT
   gateway to establish an implicit port mapping) the client should send
   the NAT gateway a port mapping request for the source port of its TCP
   connection, which will cause the NAT gateway to send a response
   giving the external port it allocated for that mapping.  The client
   can then store this information, and use it later to recreate the
   mapping if it determines that the NAT gateway has lost its mapping
   state.

8.9.2.  Maintaining Mappings

   A PCP client can refresh a mapping by sending a new PCP request
   containing information from the earlier PCP response.  The PCP server
   will respond indicating the new lifetime.  It is possible, due to
   failure of the PCP server, that the public IP address and/or public
   port, or the PCP server itself, has changed (due to a new route to a
   different PCP server).  To detect such events more quickly, the PCP
   client may find it beneficial to use shorter lifetimes (so that it
   communicates with the PCP server more often).  If the PCP client has
   several mappings, the Epoch value only needs to be retrieved for one
   of them to verify the PCP server has not lost port forwarding state.

   If the client wishes to check the PCP server's Epoch, it sends a PCP
   request for any one of the client's mappings.  This will return the
   current Epoch value.  In that request the PCP client could extend the
   mapping lifetime (by asking for more time) or maintain the current
   lifetime (by asking for the same number of seconds that it knows are
   remaining of the lifetime).


9.  PEER OpCodes

   This section defines two OpCodes for controlling dynamic connections.
   They are:







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 36]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


     PEER4=2:  Set or query lifetime for flow from IPv4 address to a
               remote peer's IPv4 address.

     PEER6=3:  Set or query lifetime for flow from IPv6 address to a
               remote peer's IPv6 address.

   The operation of these OpCodes is described in this section.

9.1.  OpCode Packet Formats

   The PEER OpCodes provide a single function: the ability for the PCP
   client to query and (possibly) extend the lifetime of an existing
   mapping.

   The two PEER OpCodes (PEER4 and PEER6) share a similar packet layout
   for both requests and responses.  Because of this similarity, they
   are shown together.

   The following diagram shows the request packet format for PEER4 and
   PEER6.  This packet format is aligned with the response packet
   format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Protocol     |        Reserved (24 bits)                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :  Remote Peer IP address (32 bits if PEER4, 128 bits if PEER6) :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :                 Reserved (128 bits)                           :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                    Requested lifetime                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |        internal port          |     reserved (16 bits)        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       remote peer port        |     reserved (16 bits)        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 12: PEER OpCode Request Packet Format

   These fields are described below:






Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 37]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   Protocol:  indicates protocol associated with this OpCode.  Values
      are taken from the IANA protocol registry [proto_numbers].  For
      example, this field contains 6 (TCP) if the OpCode is describing a
      TCP peer.

   Reserved:  24 reserved bits, MUST be 0 on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

   Remote Peer IP Address:  Remote peer's IP address, from the
      perspective of the PCP client.

   Reserved:  128 reserved bits, MUST be 0 on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

   Requested lifetime:  Requested lifetime of this mapping, in seconds.
      Unlike the MAP OpCode, there is no special meaning of 0.

   internal port:  Internal port for the of the 5-tuple.

   Reserved:  16 reserved bits, MUST be 0 on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

   Remote Peer Port:  Remote peer's port of the 5-tuple.

   Reserved:  16 reserved bits, MUST be 0 on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

























Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 38]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   The following diagram shows the response packet format for PEER4 and
   PEER6:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Protocol     |  External_AF  |       Reserved (16 bits)      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :  Remote Peer IP address (32 bits if PEER4, 128 bits if PEER6) :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :   External IP address (always 128 bits)                       :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               Assigned Lifetime                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |        internal port          |     external port             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       remote peer port        |     reserved (16 bits)        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 13: PEER OpCode Response Packet Format

   Protocol:  Copied from the request.

   External_AF  For success responses, this contains the address family
      of the external IP address associated with this peer connection.
      Values are from IANA's address family numbers (IPv4 is 1, IPv6 is
      2).  For error responses, the value MUST be 0.

   Reserved:  16 reserved bits, MUST be 0 on transmission, MUST be
      ignored on reception.

   remote Peer IP address  Copied from the request.

   External IP Address  For success responses, this contains the
      external IP address, assigned by the NAT (or firewall) to this
      mapping.  If firewall, this will match the internal IP address.
      This field is always 128 bits long.  If External_AF indicates
      IPv4, the IPv4 address is encoded in the first 32 bits of the
      External IP Address field and the remaining 96 bits are zero.  For
      error responses, this MUST be 0.







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 39]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   Assigned Lifetime:  For success responses, this is the assigned
      lifetime, in seconds.  For error responses, this is 0.s

   internal port:  copied from request.

   external port:  For success responses, this is the external port
      number, assigned by the NAT (or firewall) to this mapping.  If
      firewall or 1:1 NAT, this will match the internal port.  For error
      responses, this MUST be 0.

   remote peer port:  Copied from request.

   Reserved:  16 reserved bits, MUST be 0 on transmission, MUST be
      ignored on reception.

9.2.  OpCode-Specific Result Codes

   In addition to the general PCP result codes (Section 5.4) the
   following additional result codes may be returned as a result of the
   two PEER OpCodes received by the PCP server.

   50 NONEXIST_PEER, the connection to that peer does not exist in the
      mapping table.

   Additional result codes may be returned if the THIRD_PARTY option is
   used, see Section 10.

9.3.  OpCode-Specific Client: Generating a Request

   This section describes the operation of a client when generating the
   OpCodes PEER4 or PEER6.

   The PEER4 or PEER6 OpCodes MUST NOT be sent until establishing bi-
   directional communication with the remote peer.  For TCP, this means
   completing the TCP 3-way handshake.  This is because the PCP-
   controlled device may not be able to extend the lifetime of a mapping
   until after bi-directional communications has been established.

   The PEER4 and PEER6 OpCodes contain a description of the socket, from
   the perspective of the PCP client.  This is important when the PCP-
   controlled device is performing address family translation (NAT46 or
   NAT64), because the destination address from the perspective of the
   PCP client is different from the destination address on the other
   side of the address family translation device.







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 40]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


9.4.  OpCode-Specific Server: Processing a Request

   This section describes the operation of a server when receiving a
   request with the OpCodes PEER4 or PEER6.

   On receiving the PEER4 or PEER6 OpCode, the PCP server examines the
   mapping table.  If a mapping does not exist, the NONEXIST_PEER error
   is returned.

   If the PCP-controlled device can extend the lifetime of a mapping,
   the PCP server uses the smaller of its configured maximum lifetime
   value and the requested lifetime from the PEER request, and sets the
   lifetime to that value.

   The PEER4 or PEER6 OpCodes MUST NOT reduce the lifetime of an
   existing mapping.  If the mapping is terminated by the TCP client or
   server (e.g., TCP FIN or TCP RST), the mapping will eventually be
   destroyed normally; the earlier use of PEER does not extend the
   lifetime in that case.

   If all of the proceeding operations were successful (did not generate
   an error response), then a SUCCESS response is generated, with the
   assigned-lifetime containing the lifetime of the mapping.

      Note: it is implementation-specific if the PCP-controlled device
      destroys the mapping when the lifetime expires, or if
      inside->outside traffic keeps the mapping alive.

9.5.  OpCode-Specific Client: Processing a Response

   This section describes the operation of a client when processing a
   response with the OpCodes PEER4 or PEER6.

   A response is matched with a request by comparing the protocol,
   external AF, internal IP address, internal port, remote peer address
   and remote peer port.  Other fields are not compared, because the PCP
   server changes those fields to provide information about the mapping
   created by the OpCode.

   If the error response NONEXIST_PEER, this could have occurred if the
   PCP client sent its PEER request before the PCP-controlled device had
   installed the mapping, or because the mapping has been destroyed
   (e.g., due to a TCP FIN).  If the PCP client believes the mapping
   should exist, the PCP client SHOULD retry the request after a brief
   delay (e.g., 5 seconds).

   Other error responses SHOULD NOT be retried.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 41]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   If a successful response, the PCP client uses the assigned lifetime
   value to reduce its frequency of application keepalives for that
   particular NAT mapping.  Of course, there may be other reasons,
   specific to the application, to use more frequent application
   keepalives.  For example, the PCP assigned-lifetime could be one hour
   but the application may want to ensure the server is still accessible
   (e.g., has not crashed) more frequently than once an hour.

   If the PCP client wishes to keep this mapping alive beyond the
   indicated lifetime, it SHOULD issue a new PCP request prior to the
   expiration.  That is, inside->outside traffic is not sufficient to
   ensure the mapping will continue to exist.  It is RECOMMENDED to send
   a single renewal request packet when a mapping is halfway to
   expiration time, then, if no positive response is received, another
   single renewal request 3/4 of the way to expiration time, and then
   another at 7/8 of the way to expiration time, and so on, subject to
   the constraint that renewal requests MUST NOT be sent less than four
   seconds apart (a PCP client MUST NOT send an infinite number of ever-
   closer-together requests in the last few seconds before a mapping
   expires).

9.6.  PCP Options for PEER OpCodes

9.6.1.  THIRD_PARTY

   The THIRD_PARTY option is used by both the MAP OpCode and the PEER
   OpCode, and defined in Section 10.


10.  THIRD_PARTY Option for MAP and PEER OpCodes

   This Option is used when a PCP client wants to control a mapping to
   an internal target host other than itself.  This is used with both
   MAP and PEER OpCodes.

   A PCP server will only process this option if sent by an authorized
   PCP client, otherwise will return an error.  Determining which PCP
   clients are authorized to use the THIRD_PARTY option depends on the
   deployment scenario.  For Dual-Stack Lite deployments, the PCP server
   only supports this option if the source IPv4 address is the B4's
   source IP address.  For other scenarios, the subscriber has only one
   IPv4 address and this Option serves no purpose (and will only
   generate error messages from the server).  If a subscriber has more
   than one IPv4 address, the ISP MUST determine its own policy for how
   to identify the trusted device within the subscriber's home.  This
   might be, for example, the lowest- or highest-numbered host address
   for that user's IPv4 prefix.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 42]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                                                               :
   : Target Internal IP address (32 bits of 128 bits, depending    :
   :                                       on Option length)       :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The fields are described below:

   Mapping Internal IP Address:  Internal IP address of the mapping.  If
      the length of this Option is 1, this is a 32-bit IPv4 address.  If
      the length of this Option is 4, this is a 128-bit IPv6 address.
      This can contain the special value "0" (all zeros), which
      indicates "all addresses associated with this subscriber" which is
      used to delete all pre-existing mappings with the MAP Opcode.

   This Option:

      name: THIRD_PARTY

      number: 4

      purpose: Indicate the MAP or PEER request is for a host other than
      the host sending the PCP option.

      is valid for OpCodes: MAP4, MAP6, PEER4, PEER6

      length: 1 if OpCode is MAP4 or PEER4, 4 if OpCode is MAP6 or PEER6

      may appear in: request.  May appear in response only if it
      appeared in the associated request.

      maximum occurrences: 1

   The following additional result codes may be returned as a result of
   using this Option.

   51 UNAUTH_TARGET_ADDRESS, indicting the target IP address specified
      is not permitted (e.g., the address does not belong to this
      subscriber, or is otherwise prohibited.).  If this is a MAP
      request, this is a long-term error.

   52 UNAUTH_SOURCE_ADDRESS, indicates the source address of this PCP
      message is not authorized by the PCP server to use the THIRD_PARTY
      option.

   A PCP server is configured to permit or to restrict the use of the



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 43]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   THIRD_PARTY option.  If this option is permitted, any host on a
   subscriber's network network can create, modify, or destroy mappings
   for another host on the network, which is generally undesirable.  If
   third party mappings are restricted, only a certain host on the
   subscriber's network can perform these operations.  If a PCP server
   is configured to restrict third party mappings, and receives a PCP
   MCP request with a Target Address that does not match the source IP
   address of that request, it MUST generate a UNAUTH_TARGET_ADDRESS
   response.

   It is RECOMMENDED that PCP servers embedded into customer premise
   equipment be configured to restrict third party mappings.  With this
   configuration, if a user wants to create a third party mapping, the
   user needs to interact out-of-band with their customer premise router
   (e.g., using its HTTP administrative interface).

   It is RECOMMENDED that PCP servers embedded into service provider NAT
   and firewall devices be configured to permit the THIRD_PARTY option.
   With this configuration, if a user wants to create an explicit
   dynamic mapping or query an implicit dynamic mapping for another host
   within their network, the user needs to interact out-of-band with
   their customer premise router (e.g., using its HTTP administrative
   interface).  This is because the service provider's PCP server only
   allows a PEER or MAP request containing the THIRD_PARTY option if it
   has the IP address of the subscriber's customer premise router.  To
   do this, the PCP server needs certain knowledge about the network's
   subscribers.  It needs to determine the IP address of the
   subscriber's customer premise router and to determine the IP subnet
   assigned to the subscriber.  This knowledge might be dynamic (e.g.,
   database query into the service provider's user database for every
   incoming PCP request), might be a table (e.g., subscribers with a
   certain IPv4 network prefix all have an IPv4 /24, other IPv4 prefixes
   have an IPv4 /32, certain IPv6 prefixes have an have an IPv6 /32, and
   so on), or might be very static (e.g., all subscribers have one IPv4
   address).  In many common deployments, there is only one IPv4 address
   assigned to a subscriber, and thus the Target Address will always
   match the source address of the PCP message.  If there are multiple
   IPv4 or multiple IPv6 addresses assigned to a subscriber, the PCP
   server allows the highest-numbered address to use the THIRD_PARTY
   option.  Thus, on a network supporting PCP with multiple addresses
   assigned to a subscriber, the highest-numbered host SHOULD be the
   subscriber's customer premise router.  Upon receiving a MAP or PEER
   request where the Target Address does not match the source IP address
   of the request, the PCP server determines if the source IP address of
   the request is the subscriber's highest numbered address, following
   the procedure above.  If not, the PCP server MUST generate an
   UNAUTH_SOURCE_ADDRESS error.  Then the PCP server determines if the
   Target Address belongs to the same subscriber as the source IP



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 44]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   address of the PCP packet, using the procedure described above.  If
   not, the PCP server MUST generate an UNAUTH_TARGET_ADDRESS error.

   If authorized to do so, a PCP client can delete all the PCP-created
   dynamic explicit mappings (i.e., those created by PCP) for all hosts
   belonging to the same subscriber.  This is done by sending a PCP MAP
   request including the THIRD_PARTY option with its Target Address
   field set to 0.


11.  Deployment Considerations

11.1.  Maintaining Same External IP Address

   It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same
   external IP address PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings and to
   implicit dynamic mappings.  It is RECOMMENDED that static mappings
   (e.g., those created by a command language interface on the PCP
   server or PCP-controlled device) also be assigned to the same IP
   address.

   Once all internal hosts belonging to a given subscriber have no
   implicit dynamic mappings and have no explicit dynamic mappings in
   the PCP-controlled device, a subsequent PCP request for that internal
   host MAY be assigned to a different external IP address.  Generally,
   this re-assignment would occur when a CGN device is load balancing
   newly-seen hosts to its public IPv4 address pool.

11.2.  Ingress Filtering

   To prevent spoofing of PCP requests, ingress filtering [RFC2827] MUST
   be performed by devices between the PCP clients and PCP server.  For
   example, with a PCP server integrated into a customer premise router,
   the Ethernet switch needs to perform ingress filtering.  As another
   example, with a PCP server deployed by a service provider, the
   service provider's aggregation router (the first device connecting to
   subscribers) needs to do ingress filtering.

11.3.  Per-Subscriber Port Forwarding Quota

   On PCP-controlled devices that create state when a mapping is created
   (e.g., NAPT), the PCP server SHOULD maintain a per-subscriber mapping
   quota for PCP-created mappings.  It is implementation-specific if the
   PCP server has a separate or combined quota for both implicit dynamic
   mappings (e.g., TCP SYNs) and explicit dynamic mappings (PCP).






Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 45]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


12.  Deployment Scenarios

12.1.  Dual Stack-Lite

   The interesting components in a Dual-Stack Lite deployment are the B4
   element (which is the customer premises router) and the AFTR (Address
   Family Transition Router) element.  The AFTR element terminates the
   IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel and also implements the Carrier-Grade NAT44
   function.  The B4 element does not need to perform a NAT function
   (and usually does not perform a NAT function), but it does operate
   its own DHCP server and is the local network's default router.

12.1.1.  Overview

   Various PCP deployment scenarios can be considered to control the PCP
   server embedded in the AFTR element:

   1.  UPnP IGD and NAT-PMP [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] are used in the LAN:
       an interworking function is required to be embedded in the B4
       element to ensure interworking between the protocol used in the
       LAN and PCP.  UPnP IGD-PCP Interworking Function is described in
       [I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking].

   2.  Hosts behind the B4 element will either include a PCP client or
       UPnP IGD client, or both.

       A.  if a UPnP IGD client, the B4 element will need to include an
           interworking function from UPnP IGD to PCP.

       B.  if a PCP client, the PCP client will communicate directly
           with the PCP server.

   3.  The B4 element includes a PCP client which is invoked by an HTTP-
       based configuration (as is common today).  The internal IP
       address field in the PCP payload would be the internal host used
       in the port forwarding configuration.

   In Dual Stack-Lite, the B4 element encapsulates its PCP messages into
   the IPv6 tunnel towards the AFTR element.  It is expected the B4
   element will also perform as a proxy from PCP to PCP
   [I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy], and may also proxy from other protocols to PCP
   (e.g., [I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking].  When proxying for other
   hosts, the B4 element will necessarily use the THIRD_PARTY option
   with the MAP and PEER OpCodes.







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 46]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


12.2.  NAT64

   Hosts behind a NAT64 device can make use of PCP in order to perform
   port reservation (to get a publicly routable IPv4 port).

12.3.  NAT44 and NAT444

   Residential subscribers in NAT44 (and NAT444) deployments are usually
   given one IPv4 address, but may also be given several IPv4 addresses.
   These addresses are not routable on the IPv4 Internet, but are
   routable between the subscriber's home and the ISP's CGN.  To
   accommodate multiple hosts within a home, especially when provided
   insufficient IPv4 addresses for the number of devices in the home,
   subscribers operate a NAPT device.  When this occurs in conjunction
   with an upstream NAT44, this is nicknamed "NAT444".

12.4.  IPv6 Simple Firewall

   Many IPv6 deployments will include a simple firewall [RFC6092], which
   permits outgoing packets to initiate bi-directional communication but
   blocks unsolicited incoming packets, which is similar to PCP's
   security model that allows a host to create a mapping to itself.  In
   many situations, especially residential networks that lack an IT
   staff, the security provided by an IPv6 simple firewall and the
   security provided by PCP are compatible.  In such situations, the
   IPv6 simple firewall and the IPv6 host can use the MAP6 OpCode to
   allow unsolicited incoming packets, so the host can operate a server.


13.  Security Considerations

   The PCP client's source port SHOULD be randomly generated [RFC6056].
   The PCP server MUST only listen for requests from its internal
   interfaces, and MUST NOT listen for requests on its Internet-facing
   interfaces.

   This document defines Port Control Protocol and two types of OpCodes,
   PEER and MAP.  The PEER OpCode allows querying and extending (if
   permitted) the lifetime of an existing implicit dynamic mapping, so a
   host can reduce its keepalive messages.  The MAP OpCode allows
   creating a mapping so a host can receive incoming unsolicited
   connections from the Internet in order to run a server.

   The PEER OpCode does not introduce any new security considerations.

   On today's Internet, ISPs do not typically filter incoming traffic
   for their subscribers.  However, when an ISP introduces stateful
   address sharing with a NAPT device, such filtering will occur as a



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 47]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   side effect.  Filtering will also occur with IPv6 CPE
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security].  The MAP OpCode allows a PCP
   client to create a mapping so that a host can receive inbound traffic
   and operate a server.  Security considerations for the MAP OpCode are
   described in the following sections.

13.1.  Denial of Service

   Because the state created in a NAPT or firewall, a per-subscriber
   quota will likely exist for both implicit dynamic mappings (e.g.,
   outgoing TCP connections) and explicit dynamic mappings (PCP).  A
   subscriber might make an excessive number of implicit or explicit
   dynamic mappings, consuming an inordinate number of ports, causing a
   denial of service to other subscribers.  Thus, Section 11.3recommends
   that subscribers be limited to a reasonable number of explicit
   dynamic mappings.

13.2.  Ingress Filtering

   It is important to prevent a subscriber from creating a mapping for
   another subscriber, because this allows incoming packets from the
   Internet and consumes the other user's mapping quota.  Both implicit
   dynamic mappings (e.g., outgoing TCP connections) and explicit
   dynamic mappings (PCP) need ingress filtering.  Thus, PCP does not
   create a new requirement for ingress filtering.

13.3.  Validating Target Address

   The THIRD_PARTY Option contains a Target Address field, which allows
   a PCP client to create an explicit dynamic mapping for another host.
   Hosts within a subscriber's network cannot create, modify, or delete
   mappings of other hosts, except by using the administrative interface
   of the customer premise router (e.g., HTTP interface), as described
   in Section 10.


14.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to perform the following actions:

14.1.  Port Number

   IANA has assigned UDP port 44323 for PCP.

14.2.  OpCodes

   IANA shall create a new protocol registry for PCP OpCodes, initially
   populated with the values in Section 8 and Section 9.



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 48]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   New OpCodes in the range 1-95 can be created via Standards Action
   [RFC5226], and the range 96-128 is for Private Use [RFC5226].

14.3.  Result Codes

   IANA shall create a new registry for PCP result codes, numbered
   0-255, initially populated with the result codes from Section 5.4,
   Section 8.2, Section 8.8.1, Section 9.2, and Section 10.

   Additional Result Codes can be defined via Specification Required
   [RFC5226].

14.4.  Options

   IANA shall create a new registry for PCP Options, numbered 0-255 with
   an associated mnemonic.  The values 0-128 are mandatory-to-process,
   and 128-255 are optional-to-process.  The initial registry contains
   the options described in Section 8.8 and Section 10, and the option
   values 0 and 255 are reserved.

   New PCP option codes in the range 0-63 and 128-192 can be created via
   Standards Action [RFC5226], and the range 64-127 and 192-255 is for
   Private Use [RFC5226].


15.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Alain Durand, Christian Jacquenet, Jacni Qin, and Simon
   Perreault for their comments and review.  Thanks to Simon Perreault
   for highlighting the interaction of dynamic connections with PCP-
   created mappings.


16.  References

16.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate]
              Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
              Algorithm", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-23 (work in
              progress), September 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
              Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers",
              draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 (work in
              progress), July 2010.



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 49]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   [I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite]
              Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06 (work
              in progress), August 2010.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC6056]  Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
              Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
              January 2011.

   [proto_numbers]
              IANA, "Protocol Numbers", 2010, <http://www.iana.org/
              assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xml>.

16.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.arkko-dual-stack-extra-lite]
              Arkko, J., Eggert, L., and M. Townsley, "Scalable
              Operation of Address Translators with Per-Interface
              Bindings", draft-arkko-dual-stack-extra-lite-05 (work in
              progress), February 2011.

   [I-D.bpw-pcp-proxy]
              Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and F. Dupont, "Port
              Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function",
              draft-bpw-pcp-proxy-00 (work in progress), February 2011.

   [I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking]
              Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and F. Dupont,
              "Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device
              (IGD)-Port Control Protocol (PCP) Interworking Function",
              draft-bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-02 (work in progress),
              February 2011.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 50]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]
              Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
              draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]
              Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., and H. Ashida,
              "Common requirements for IP address sharing schemes",
              draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-00 (work in progress),
              October 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security]
              Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
              Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6
              Internet Service", draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-16
              (work in progress), October 2010.

   [I-D.miles-behave-l2nat]
              Miles, D. and M. Townsley, "Layer2-Aware NAT",
              draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00 (work in progress),
              March 2009.

   [IGD]      UPnP Gateway Committee, "WANIPConnection:1",
              November 2001, <http://upnp.org/specs/gw/
              UPnP-gw-WANIPConnection-v1-Service.pdf>.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
              January 2001.

   [RFC3424]  Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral
              Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address
              Translation", RFC 3424, November 2002.

   [RFC3581]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Extension to the
              Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Symmetric Response
              Routing", RFC 3581, August 2003.



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 51]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.

   [RFC4961]  Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
              BCP 131, RFC 4961, July 2007.

   [RFC5461]  Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
              February 2009.

   [RFC6092]  Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
              Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
              Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
              January 2011.


Appendix A.  Changes

A.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-05 to -06

   o  DS-Lite: consensus was encapsulation mode.  Included a suggestion
      that the B4 will need to proxy PCP-to-PCP and UPnP-to-PCP.

   o  defined THIRD_PARTY option to work with the PEER OpCode, too.
      This meant moving it to its own section, and having both MAP and
      PEER OpCodes reference that common section.

   o  used "target" instead of "internal", in the hopes that clarifies
      internal address used by PCP itself (for sending its packets)
      versus the address for MAPpings.

   o  Options are now required to be ordered in requests, and ordering
      has to be validated by the server.  Intent is to ease server
      processing of mandatory-to-implement options.

   o  Swapped Option values for the mandatory- and optional-to-process
      Options, so we can have a simple lowest..highest ordering.

   o  added MISORDERED_OPTIONS error.

   o  re-ordered some error messages to cause MALFORMED_REQUEST (which
      is PCP's most general error response) to be error 1, instead of
      buried in the middle of the error numbers.

   o  clarified that, after successfully using a PCP server, that PCP
      server is declared to be non-responsive after 5 failed
      retransmissions.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 52]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   o  tightened up text (which was inaccurate) about how long general
      PCP processing is to delay when receiving an error and if it
      should honor OpCode-specific error lifetime.  Useful for MAP
      errors which have an error lifetime.  (This all feels awkward to
      have only some errors with a lifetime.)

   o  Added better discussion of multiple interfaces, including
      highlighting WiFi+Ethernet.  Added discussion of using IPv6
      Privacy Addresses and RFC1918 as source addresses for PCP
      requests.  This should finish the section on multi-interface
      issues.

   o  added some text about why server might send SERVER_OVERLOADED, or
      might simply discard packets.

   o  Dis-allow internal-port=0, which means we dis-allow using PCP as a
      DMZ-like function.  Instead, ports have to be mapped individually.

   o  Text describing server's processing of PEER is tightened up.

   o  Server's processing of PEER now says it is implementation-specific
      if a PCP server continues to allow the mapping to exist after a
      PEER message.  Client's processing of PEER says that if client
      wants mapping to continue to exist, client has to continue to send
      recurring PEER messages.

A.2.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-04 to -05

   o  tweaked PCP common header packet layout.

   o  Re-added port=0 (all ports).

   o  minimum size is 12 octets (missed that change in -04).

   o  removed Lifetime from PCP common header.

   o  for MAP error responses, the lifetime indicates how long the
      server wants the client to avoid retrying the request.

   o  More clearly indicated which fields are filled by the server on
      success responses and error responses.

   o  Removed UPnP interworking section from this document.  It will
      appear in [I-D.bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking].







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 53]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


A.3.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-03 to -04

   o  "Pinhole" and "PIN" changed to "mapping" and "MAP".

   o  Reduced from four MAP OpCodes to two.  This was done by implicitly
      using the address family of the PCP message itself.

   o  New option THIRD_PARTY, to more carefully split out the case where
      a mapping is created to a different host within the home.

   o  Integrated a lot of editorial changes from Stuart and Francis.

   o  Removed nested NAT text into another document, including the IANA-
      registered IP addresses for the PCP server.

   o  Removed suggestion (MAY) that PCP server reserve UDP when it maps
      TCP.  Nobody seems to need that.

   o  Clearly added NAT and NAPT, such as in residential NATs, as within
      scope for PCP.

   o  HONOR_EXTERNAL_PORT renamed to PREFER_FAILURE

   o  Added 'Lifetime' field to the common PCP header, which replaces
      the functions of the 'temporary' and 'permanent' error types of
      the previous version.

   o  Allow arbitrary Options to be included in PCP response, so that
      PCP server can indicate un-supported PCP Options.  Satisfies PCP
      Issue #19

   o  Reduced scope to only deal with mapping protocols that have port
      numbers.

   o  Reduced scope to not support DMZ-style forwarding.

   o  Clarified version negotiation.

A.4.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-02 to -03

   o  Adjusted abstract and introduction to make it clear PCP is
      intended to forward ports and intended to reduce application
      keepalives.

   o  First bit in PCP common header is set.  This allows DTLS and non-
      DTLS to be multiplexed on same port, should a future update to
      this specification add DTLS support.




Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 54]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   o  Moved subscriber identity from common PCP section to MAP* section.

   o  made clearer that PCP client can reduce mapping lifetime if it
      wishes.

   o  Added discussion of host running a server, client, or symmetric
      client+server.

   o  Introduced PEER4 and PEER6 OpCodes.

   o  Removed REMOTE_PEER Option, as its function has been replaced by
      the new PEER OpCodes.

   o  IANA assigned port 44323 to PCP.

   o  Removed AMBIGUOUS error code, which is no longer needed.

A.5.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-01 to -02

   o  more error codes

   o  PCP client source port number should be random

   o  PCP message minimum 8 octets, maximum 1024 octets.

   o  tweaked a lot of text in section 7.4, "Opcode-Specific Server
      Operation".

   o  opening a mapping also allows ICMP messages associated with that
      mapping.

   o  PREFER_FAILURE value changed to the mandatory-to-process range.

   o  added text recommending applications that are crashing obtain
      short lifetimes, to avoid consuming subscriber's port quota.

A.6.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 to -01

   o  Significant document reorganization, primarily to split base PCP
      operation from OpCode operation.

   o  packet format changed to move 'protocol' outside of PCP common
      header and into the MAP* opcodes

   o  Renamed Informational Elements (IE) to Options.

   o  Added REMOTE_PEER (for disambiguation with dynamic ports),
      REMOTE_PEER_FILTER (for simple packet filtering), and



Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 55]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


      PREFER_FAILURE (to optimize UPnP IGD interworking) options.

   o  Is NAT or router behind B4 in scope?

   o  PCP option MAY be included in a request, in which case it MUST
      appear in a response.  It MUST NOT appear in a response if it was
      not in the request.

   o  Response code most significant bit now indicates permanent/
      temporary error

   o  PCP Options are split into mandatory-to-process ("P" bit), and
      into Specification Required and Private Use.

   o  Epoch discussion simplified.


Authors' Addresses

   Dan Wing (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, California  95134
   USA

   Email: dwing@cisco.com


   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple, Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, California  95014
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 974 3207
   Email: cheshire@apple.com


   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes,   35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com







Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 56]

Internet-Draft         Port Control Protocol (PCP)         February 2011


   Reinaldo Penno
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, California  94089
   USA

   Email: rpenno@juniper.net


   Francis Dupont
   Internet Systems Consortium

   Email: fdupont@isc.org






































Wing, et al.            Expires September 1, 2011              [Page 57]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/