Subject: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-04

From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 05:26:01 +0000

One important comment as I review the draft:

Section 5.9 needs to be rewritten taking into account that PCP can not delete a mapping on the far NAT if it is considered a LSN (LSN Req-9), but UPnP Control Points expect to be able to delete mappings. Same for NAT-PMP?

It is not clear to me at this point  how to reconcile this behavior because UPnP Control Points will not change their behavior. Therefore if UPnP tries to delete a mapping (as it is expected it can)  PCP will not be able to…This is true if IWF also implements a  NAT (NAT444 scenario) or not (DS-Lite, etc).

It seems to me this applies to chained Firewalls as well.

Thanks,

Reinaldo