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

Versions: (draft-boucadair-pcp-rtp-rtcp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 7753

Internet Engineering Task Force                                   Q. Sun
Internet-Draft                                             China Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track                            M. Boucadair
Expires: April 24, 2016                                   France Telecom
                                                            S. Sivakumar
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                 C. Zhou
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                 T. Tsou
                                               Huawei Technologies (USA)
                                                            S. Perreault
                                                     Jive Communications
                                                        October 22, 2015


     Port Control Protocol (PCP) Extension for Port Set Allocation
                       draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-13

Abstract

   In some use cases, e.g., Lightweight 4over6, the client may require
   not just one port, but a port set.  This document defines an
   extension to the Port Control Protocol (PCP) allowing clients to
   manipulate sets of ports as a whole.  This is accomplished by a new
   MAP option: PORT_SET.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Applications Using Port Sets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Lightweight 4over6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.3.  Firewall Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.4.  Discovering Stateless Port Set Mappings . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  The need for PORT_SET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  The PORT_SET Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Absence of Capability Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Port Set Renewal and Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.4.1.  Overlap Conditions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Simple Request on NAT44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Stateless Mapping Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Resolving Overlap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  Limits and Quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.3.  Idempotence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.4.  What Should a PCP Client Do When It Receives Fewer Ports
           than Requested? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17








Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


1.  Introduction

   This document extends Port Control Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887] with the
   ability to retrieve a set of ports using a single request.  It does
   so by defining a new PORT_SET option.

   This section describes a few (and non-exhaustive) envisioned use
   cases.  Note that the PCP extension defined in this document is
   generic and is expected to be applicable to other use cases.

1.1.  Applications Using Port Sets

   Some applications require not just one port, but a port set.  One
   example is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) User Agent Server
   (UAS) [RFC3261] expecting to handle multiple concurrent calls,
   including media termination.  When it receives a call, it needs to
   signal media port numbers to its peer.  Generating individual PCP MAP
   requests for each of the media ports during call setup would
   introduce unwanted latency and increased signaling load.  Instead,
   the server can pre-allocate a set of ports such that no PCP exchange
   is needed during call setup.

1.2.  Lightweight 4over6

   In the Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) [RFC7596] architecture, shared
   global addresses can be allocated to customers.  It allows moving the
   Network Address Translation (NAT) function, otherwise accomplished by
   a Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) [RFC6888], to the Customer-Premises
   Equipment (CPE).  This provides more control over the NAT function to
   the user, and more scalability to the Internet Service Provider
   (ISP).

   In the lw4o6 architecture, the PCP-controlled device corresponds to
   the Lightweight AFTR (lwAFTR), and the PCP client corresponds to the
   Lightweight B4 (lwB4).  The PCP client sends a PCP MAP request
   containing a PORT_SET option to trigger shared address allocation on
   the Lightweight AFTR (lwAFTR).  The PCP response contains the shared
   address information, including the port set allocated to the
   Lightweight B4 (lwB4).

1.3.  Firewall Control

   Port sets are often used in firewall rules.  For example, defining a
   range for Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] traffic is
   common practice.  The PCP MAP request can already be used for
   firewall control.  The PORT_SET option brings the additional ability
   to manipulate firewall rules operating on port sets instead of single
   ports.



Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


1.4.  Discovering Stateless Port Set Mappings

   A PCP MAP request can be used to retrieve a mapping from a stateless
   device (i.e., one that does not establish any per-flow state, and
   simply rewrites the address and/or port in a purely algorithmic
   fashion, including no rewriting).  Similarly, a PCP MAP request with
   a PORT_SET request can be used to discover a port set mapping from a
   stateless device.  See Section 5.2 for an example.

2.  The need for PORT_SET

   Multiple PCP MAP requests can be used to manipulate a set of ports,
   having roughly the same effect as a single use of a PCP MAP request
   with a PORT_SET option.  However, use of the PORT_SET option is more
   efficient when considering the following aspects:

   Network Traffic:  A single request uses less network resources than
      multiple requests.

   Latency:  Even though PCP MAP requests can be sent in parallel, we
      can expect the total processing time to be longer for multiple
      requests than a single one.

   Server-side efficiency:  Some PCP-controlled devices can allocate
      port sets in a manner such that data passing through the device is
      processed much more efficiently than the equivalent using
      individual port allocations.  For example, a CGN having a "bulk"
      port allocation scheme (see [RFC6888], Section 5) often has this
      property.

   Server-side scalability:  The number of state table entries in PCP-
      controlled devices is often a limiting factor.  Allocating port
      sets in a single request can result in a single mapping entry
      being used, therefore allowing greater scalability.

   Therefore, while it is functionally possible to obtain the same
   results using plain MAP, the extension proposed in this document
   allows greater efficiency, scalability, and simplicity, while
   lowering latency and necessary network traffic.

   In addition, PORT_SET supports parity preservation.  Some protocols
   (e.g., RTP [RFC3550]) assign meaning to a port number's parity.  When
   mapping sets of ports for the purpose of using such kind of protocol,
   preserving parity can be necessary.







Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


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 [RFC2119].

4.  The PORT_SET Option

   Option Name:  PORT_SET

   Number:  TBD (see Section 8)

   Purpose:  To map sets of ports.

   Valid for Opcodes:  MAP

   Length:  5 bytes

   May appear in:  Both requests and responses

   Maximum occurrences:  1

   The PORT_SET option indicates that the PCP client wishes to reserve a
   set of ports.  The requested number of ports in that set is indicated
   in the option.

   The maximum occurrences of the PORT_SET option MUST be limited to 1.
   The reason is that the suggested external port set depends on the
   data contained in the MAP Opcode header.  Having two PORT_SET options
   with a single MAP Opcode header would imply having two overlapping
   suggested external port sets.

   Note that the option number is in the "optional to process" range
   (128-191), meaning that a PCP MAP request with a PORT_SET option will
   be interpreted by a PCP server that does not support PORT_SET as a
   single-port PCP MAP request, as if the PORT_SET option was absent.

   The PORT_SET Option is formatted as shown in Figure 1.













Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


    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=TBD|   Reserved    |        Option Length=5        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Port Set Size          |      First Internal Port      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Reserved   |P|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 1: PORT_SET Option

   The fields are as follows:

   Port Set Size:  A 16-bit unsigned integer.  Number of ports
      requested.  MUST NOT be zero.

   First Internal Port:  In a request, this field MUST be set equal to
      the Internal Port field in the MAP opcode by the PCP client.  In a
      response, this field indicates the first internal port of the port
      set mapped by the PCP server, which may differ from the value sent
      in the request.  That is to be contrasted to the Internal Port
      field, which by necessity is always identical in matched requests
      and responses.

   Reserved:  MUST be set to zero when sending, MUST be ignored when
      receiving.

   P: 1 if parity preservation is requested, 0 otherwise.  See
      [RFC4787], Section 4.2.2.

   The Internal Port Set is defined as being the range of Port Set Size
   ports starting from the First Internal Port.  The Suggested External
   Port Set is defined as being the range of Port Set Size ports
   starting from the Suggested External Port.  Similarly, the Assigned
   External Port Set is defined as being the range of Port Set Size
   ports starting from the Assigned External Port.  The Internal Port
   Set returned in a response and the Assigned External Port Set have
   the same size.

   The Suggested External Port corresponds to the first port in the
   suggested External Port Set. Its purpose is for clients to be able to
   regenerate previous mappings after state loss.  When such an event
   happens, clients may attempt to regenerate identical mappings by
   suggesting the same External Port Set as before the state loss.  Note
   that there is no guarantee that the allocated External Port Set will
   be the one suggested by the client.




Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


4.1.  Client Behavior

   To retrieve a set of ports, the PCP client adds a PORT_SET option to
   its PCP MAP request.  If parity preservation is required (i.e., an
   even port to be mapped to an even port, and an odd port to be mapped
   to an odd port), the PCP client MUST set the parity bit (to 1) to ask
   the PCP server to preserve the port parity.

   The PCP client MUST NOT include more than one PORT_SET option in a
   PCP MAP request.  If several port sets are needed, the PCP client
   MUST issue separate PCP MAP requests, each potentially including a
   PORT_SET option.  These individual PCP MAP requests MUST include
   distinct Internal Ports.

   If the PCP client does not know the exact number of ports it
   requires, it MAY then set the Port Set Size to 0xffff, indicating
   that it is willing to accept as many ports as the PCP server can
   offer.

   A PCP client SHOULD NOT send a PORT_SET option for single-port PCP
   MAP requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion), because
   that needlessly increases processing on the server.

   PREFER_FAILURE MUST NOT appear in a request with PORT_SET option.  As
   a reminder PREFER_FAILURE was specifically designed for the Universal
   Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol
   Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF) [RFC6970].  The reasons for not
   recommending the use of PREFER_FAILURE are discussed in Section 13.2
   of [RFC6887].

   When the PCP-controlled device supports multiple port-sets delegation
   for a given PCP client, the PCP client MAY re-initiate a PCP request
   to get another port set when it has exhausted all the ports within
   the port-set.

4.2.  Server Behavior

   In addition to regular PCP MAP request processing, the following
   checks are made upon receipt of a PORT_SET option with non-zero
   Requested Lifetime:

   o  If multiple PORT_SET options are present in a single PCP MAP
      request, a MALFORMED_OPTION error is returned.

   o  If the Port Set Size is zero, a MALFORMED_OPTION error is
      returned.





Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   o  If PREFER_FAILURE option is present, a MALFORMED_OPTION error is
      returned.

   The PCP server MAY map fewer ports than the value of Port Set Size
   from the request.  It MUST NOT map more ports than the PCP client
   asked for.  Internal ports outside the range of Port Set Size ports
   starting from the Internal Port MUST NOT be mapped by the PCP server.

   If the requested port set cannot be fully satisfied, the PCP server
   SHOULD map as many ports as possible, and SHOULD map at least one
   port (which is the same behavior as if Port Set Size is set to 1).

   If the PCP server ends up mapping only a single port, for any reason,
   the PORT_SET option MUST NOT be present in the response.  In
   particular, if the PCP server receives a single-port PCP MAP request
   that includes a PORT_SET option, the PORT_SET option is silently
   ignored and the request is handled as a single-port PCP MAP request.

   If the port parity preservation is requested (P = 1), the PCP server
   MAY preserve port parity.  In that case, the External Port is set to
   a value having the same parity as the First Internal Port.

   If the mapping is successful, the MAP response's Assigned External
   Port is set to the first port in the External Port Set, and the
   PORT_SET option's Port Set Size is set to number of ports in the
   mapped port set.  The First Internal Port field is set to the first
   port in the Internal Port Set.

4.3.  Absence of Capability Discovery

   A PCP client that wishes to make use of a port set includes the
   PORT_SET option.  If no PORT_SET option is present in the response,
   the PCP client cannot conclude that the PCP server does not support
   the PORT_SET option.  It may just be that the PCP server does support
   PORT_SET but decided to allocate only a single port, for reasons that
   are its own.  If the client wishes to obtain more ports, it MAY send
   additional PCP MAP requests (see Section 6.4), which the PCP server
   may or may not grant according to local policy.

   If port set capability is added to or removed from a running PCP
   server, the server MAY reset its Epoch time and send an ANNOUNCE
   message as described in the PCP specification ([RFC6887],
   Section 14.1).  This causes PCP clients to retry, and those using
   PORT_SET will now receive a different response.







Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


4.4.  Port Set Renewal and Deletion

   Port set mappings are renewed and deleted as a single entity.  That
   is, the lifetime of all port mappings in the set is set to the
   Assigned Lifetime at once.

   A PCP client attempting to refresh or delete a port set mapping MUST
   include the PORT_SET option in its request.

4.4.1.  Overlap Conditions

   Port set PCP MAP requests can overlap with existing single port or
   port set mappings.  This can happen either by mistake or after a PCP
   client becomes out of sync with server state.

   If a PCP server receives a PCP MAP request, with or without a
   PORT_SET option, that tries to map one or more internal ports or port
   sets belonging to already existing mappings, then the request is
   considered to be a refresh request applying those mappings.  Each of
   the matching port or port set mappings is processed independently, as
   if a separate refresh request had been received.  The processing is
   as described in Section 15 of [RFC6887].  The PCP server sends a
   Mapping Update message for each of the mappings.

5.  Examples

5.1.  Simple Request on NAT44

   An application requires a range of 100 IPv4 UDP ports to be mapped to
   itself.  The application running on the host has created sockets
   bound to IPv4 UDP ports 50,000 to 50,099 for this purpose.  It does
   not care about which external port numbers are allocated.  The PCP
   client sends a PCP request with the following parameters over IPv4:

   o  MAP opcode

      Mapping Nonce:  <a random nonce>

      Protocol:  17

      Internal Port:  50,000

      Suggested External Port:  0

      Suggested External IP Address:  ::ffff:0.0.0.0

   o  PORT_SET Option




Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


      Port Set Size:  100

      First Internal Port:  50,000

      P: 0

   The PCP server is unable to fulfill the request fully: it is
   configured by local policy to only allocate 32 ports per user.  Since
   the PREFER_FAILURE option is absent from the request, it decides to
   map UDP ports 37,056 to 37,087 on external address 192.0.2.3 to
   internal ports 50,000 to 50,031.  After setting up the mapping in the
   NAT44 device it controls, it replies with the following PCP response:

   o  MAP opcode

      Mapping Nonce:  <copied from the request>

      Protocol:  17

      Internal Port:  50,000

      Assigned External Port:  37,056

      Assigned External IP Address:  ::ffff:192.0.2.3

   o  PORT_SET Option

      Port Set Size:  32

      First Internal Port:  50,000

      P: 0

   Upon receiving this response, the host decides that 32 ports is good
   enough for its purposes.  It closes sockets bound to ports 50,032 to
   50,099, sets up a refresh timer, and starts using the port range it
   has just been assigned.

5.2.  Stateless Mapping Discovery

   A host wants to discover a stateless NAT44 mapping pointing to it.
   To do so, it sends the following request over IPv4:

   o  MAP opcode

      Mapping Nonce:  <a random nonce>

      Protocol:  0



Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


      Internal Port:  1

      Suggested External Port:  0

      Suggested External IP Address:  ::ffff:0.0.0.0

   o  PORT_SET Option

      Port Set Size:  65,535

      First Internal Port:  1

      P: 0

   The PCP server sends the following response:

   o  MAP opcode

      Mapping Nonce:  <copied from the request>

      Protocol:  0

      Internal Port:  1

      Assigned External Port:  26,624

      Assigned External IP Address:  ::ffff:192.0.2.5

   o  PORT_SET Option

      Port Set Size:  2048

      First Internal Port:  26,624

      P: 0

   From this response, the host understands that a 2048-port stateless
   mapping is pointing to itself, starting from port 26,624 on external
   IP address 192.0.2.5.

5.3.  Resolving Overlap

   This example relates to Section 4.4.1.

   Suppose internal port 100 is mapped to external port 100 and port set
   101-199 is mapped to external port set 201-299.  The PCP server
   receives a PCP MAP request with Internal Port = 100, External Port =
   0, and a PORT_SET option with Port Set Size = 100.  The request's



Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   Mapping Nonce is equal to those of the existing single port and port
   set mappings.  This request is therefore treated as two refresh
   requests, the first one applying to the single port mapping and the
   second one applying to the port set mapping.  The PCP server updates
   both mapping's lifetimes as usual then sends two responses: the first
   one contains Internal Port = 100, External Port = 100, and no
   PORT_SET option, while the second one contains Internal Port = 101,
   External Port = 201, and a PORT_SET option with Port Set Size = 99.

6.  Operational Considerations

6.1.  Limits and Quotas

   It is up to the PCP server to determine the port-set quota, if any,
   for each PCP client.

   If the PCP server is configured to allocate multiple port-set
   allocations for one subscriber, the same Assigned External IP Address
   SHOULD be assigned to the subscriber in multiple port-set responses.

   To optimize the number of mapping entries maintained by the PCP
   server, it is RECOMMENDED to configure the PCP server to assign the
   maximum allowed port set size in a single response.  This policy
   SHOULD be configurable.

6.2.  High Availability

   The failover mechanism in MAP (Section 14 in [RFC6887]) can also be
   applied to port sets.

6.3.  Idempotence

   A core, desirable property of the PCP protocol is idempotence.  In a
   nutshell, requests produce the same results whether they are executed
   once or multiple times.  This property is preserved with the PORT_SET
   attribute, with the following caveat: the order in which the PCP
   server receives requests with overlapping Internal Port Sets will
   affect the mappings being created and the responses received.

   For example suppose these two requests are sent by a PCP client:

   Request A:  Internal Port Set 1-10

   Request B:  Internal Port Set 5-14

   The PCP server's actions will depend on which request is received
   first.  Suppose that A is received before B:




Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   Upon reception of A:  Internal ports 1-10 are mapped.  A success
      response containing the following fields is sent:

      Internal Port:  1

      First Internal Port:  1

      Port Set Size:  10

   Upon reception of B:  The request matches mapping A.  The request is
      interpreted as a refresh request for mapping A, and a response
      containing the following fields is sent:

      Internal Port:  5

      First Internal Port:  1

      Port Set Size:  10

   If the order of reception is reversed (B before A), the created
   mapping will be different, and the First Internal Port in both
   responses would then be 5.

   To avoid surprises, PCP clients MUST ensure that port set mapping
   requests do not inadvertently overlap.  For example, a host's
   operating system could include a central PCP client process through
   which port set mapping requests would be arbitrated.  Alternatively,
   individual PCP clients running on the same host would be required to
   acquire the internal ports from the operating system (e.g., a call to
   the bind() function from the BSD API) before trying to map them with
   PCP.

6.4.  What Should a PCP Client Do When It Receives Fewer Ports than
      Requested?

   Suppose a PCP client asks for 16 ports and receives 8.  What should
   it do?  Should it consider this a final answer?  Should it try a
   second request, asking for 8 more ports?  Should it fall back to 8
   individual PCP MAP requests?  This document leaves the answers to be
   implementation-specific, but describes issues to be considered when
   answering them.

   First, the PCP server has decided to allocate 8 ports for some
   reason.  It may be that allocation sizes have been limited by the PCP
   server's administrator.  It may be that the PCP client has reached a
   quota.  It may be that these 8 ports were the last contiguous ones
   available.  Depending on the reason, asking for more ports may or may




Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   not be likely to actually yield more ports.  However, the PCP client
   has no way of knowing.

   Second, not all PCP clients asking for N ports actually need all N
   ports to function correctly.  For example, a DNS resolver could ask
   for N ports to be used for source port randomization.  If fewer than
   N ports are received, the DNS resolver will still work correctly, but
   source port randomization will be slightly less efficient, having
   fewer bits to play with.  In that case, it would not make much sense
   to ask for more ports.

   Finally, asking for more ports could be considered abuse.  External
   ports are a resource that is to be shared among multiple PCP clients.
   A PCP client trying to obtain more than its fair share could trigger
   countermeasures according to local policy.

   In conclusion, it is expected that for most applications, asking for
   more ports would not yield benefits justifying the additional costs.

7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations discussed in [RFC6887] apply to this
   extension.

   As described in Section 4.4.1, a single PCP request using the
   PORT_SET option may result in multiple responses.  For this to happen
   it is necessary that the request contain the nonce associated to
   multiple mappings on the server.  Therefore, an on-path attacker
   could use an eavesdropped nonce to mount an amplification attack.
   Use of PCP authentication ([RFC6887], Section 18) eliminates this
   attack vector.

   In order to prevent a PCP client from controlling all ports bound to
   a shared IP address, port quotas should be configured on the PCP
   server (Section 17.2 of [RFC6887]).

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has allocated value TBD (note to IANA: to be allocated from the
   range 128-191) in the "PCP Options" registry at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters for the new PCP option
   defined in Section 4.

9.  Contributors

   The following are extended authors who contributed to the effort:

   Yunqing Chen



Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   China Telecom

   Room 502, No.118, Xizhimennei Street

   Beijing 100035

   P.R.China

   Chongfeng Xie

   China Telecom

   Room 502, No.118, Xizhimennei Street

   Beijing 100035

   P.R.China

   Yong Cui

   Tsinghua University

   Beijing 100084

   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-62603059

   Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn

   Qi Sun

   Tsinghua University

   Beijing 100084

   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-62785822

   Email: sunqibupt@gmail.com

   Gabor Bajko

   Mediatek Inc.

   Email: gabor.bajko@mediatek.com




Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   Xiaohong Deng

   France Telecom

   Email: xiaohong.deng@orange-ftgroup.com

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to show sincere appreciation to Alain Durand,
   Cong Liu, Dan Wing, Dave Thaler, Peter Koch, Reinaldo Penno, Sam
   Hartman, Stuart Cheshire, Ted Lemon, Yoshihiro Ohba, Meral
   Shirazipour, Jouni Korhonen, and Ben Campbell for their useful
   comments and suggestions.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
              Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April
              2013.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [RFC6888]  Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
              and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs
              (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, April 2013.








Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   [RFC6970]  Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Universal Plug and
              Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control
              Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF)", RFC 6970,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6970, July 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6970>.

   [RFC7596]  Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
              Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
              Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
              July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.

Authors' Addresses

   Qiong Sun
   China Telecom
   P.R.China

   Phone: 86 10 58552936
   Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn


   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes  35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Senthil Sivakumar
   Cisco Systems
   7100-8 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27709
   USA

   Phone: +1 919 392 5158
   Email: ssenthil@cisco.com


   Cathy Zhou
   Huawei Technologies
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen  518129
   P.R. China

   Email: cathy.zhou@huawei.com





Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                PCP PORT_SET                  October 2015


   Tina Tsou
   Huawei Technologies (USA)
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA 95050
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 330 4424
   Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com


   Simon Perreault
   Jive Communications
   Quebec, QC
   Canada

   Email: sperreault@jive.com



































Sun, et al.              Expires April 24, 2016                [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/