diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc6887.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6887.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc6887.txt | 4931 |
1 files changed, 4931 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6887.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6887.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7e5c038 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6887.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4931 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Wing, Ed. +Request for Comments: 6887 Cisco +Category: Standards Track S. Cheshire +ISSN: 2070-1721 Apple + M. Boucadair + France Telecom + R. Penno + Cisco + P. Selkirk + ISC + April 2013 + + + Port Control Protocol (PCP) + +Abstract + + The Port Control Protocol allows an IPv6 or IPv4 host to control how + incoming IPv6 or IPv4 packets are translated and forwarded by a + Network Address Translator (NAT) or simple firewall, and also allows + a host to optimize its outgoing NAT keepalive messages. + +Status of This Memo + + This is an Internet Standards Track document. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2013 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 + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + 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 Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.3. Single-Homed Customer Premises Network . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4. Relationship between PCP Server and Its PCP-Controlled + Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. Note on Fixed-Size Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6. Protocol Design Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 7. Common Request and Response Header Format . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7.1. Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 7.2. Response Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 7.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 7.4. Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 8. General PCP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 8.1. General PCP Client: Generating a Request . . . . . . . . . 21 + 8.1.1. PCP Client Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 8.2. General PCP Server: Processing a Request . . . . . . . . . 24 + 8.3. General PCP Client: Processing a Response . . . . . . . . 25 + 8.4. Multi-Interface Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 8.5. Epoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 9. Version Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 10. Introduction to MAP and PEER Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10.1. For Operating a Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + 10.2. For Operating a Symmetric Client/Server . . . . . . . . . 35 + 10.3. For Reducing NAT or Firewall Keepalive Messages . . . . . 37 + 10.4. For Restoring Lost Implicit TCP Dynamic Mapping State . . 38 + 11. MAP Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 + 11.1. MAP Operation Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 + 11.2. Generating a MAP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 + 11.2.1. Renewing a Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 11.3. Processing a MAP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 + 11.4. Processing a MAP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 + 11.5. Address Change Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 + 11.6. Learning the External IP Address Alone . . . . . . . . . . 50 + 12. PEER Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 + 12.1. PEER Operation Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 + 12.2. Generating a PEER Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 + 12.3. Processing a PEER Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 + 12.4. Processing a PEER Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + 13. Options for MAP and PEER Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 + 13.1. THIRD_PARTY Option for MAP and PEER Opcodes . . . . . . . 57 + 13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . 59 + 13.3. FILTER Option for MAP Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 + 14. Rapid Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 + 14.1. ANNOUNCE Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 + 14.1.1. ANNOUNCE Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 + 14.1.2. Generating and Processing a Solicited ANNOUNCE + Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 + 14.1.3. Generating and Processing an Unsolicited ANNOUNCE + Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 + 14.2. PCP Mapping Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 + 15. Mapping Lifetime and Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 + 15.1. Lifetime Processing for the MAP Opcode . . . . . . . . . . 71 + 16. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 + 16.1. Implementing MAP with EDM Port-Mapping NAT . . . . . . . . 72 + 16.2. Lifetime of Explicit and Implicit Dynamic Mappings . . . . 72 + 16.3. PCP Failure Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 + 16.3.1. Recreating Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 + 16.3.2. Maintaining Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 + 16.3.3. SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 + 16.4. Source Address Replicated in PCP Header . . . . . . . . . 75 + 16.5. State Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 + 17. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 + 17.1. Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 + 17.2. Mapping Quota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 + 18. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 + 18.1. Simple Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 + 18.1.1. Attacks Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 + 18.1.2. Deployment Examples Supporting the Simple Threat + Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 + 18.2. Advanced Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 + 18.3. Residual Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 + 18.3.1. Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 + 18.3.2. Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 + 18.3.3. Mapping Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 + 18.3.4. Attacks against Server Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . 81 + 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 + 19.1. Port Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 + 19.2. Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 + 19.3. Result Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 + 19.4. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 + 20. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 + 21. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 + 21.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 + 21.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 + Appendix A. NAT-PMP Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +1. Introduction + + The Port Control Protocol (PCP) provides a mechanism to control how + incoming packets are forwarded by upstream devices such as Network + Address Translator IPv6/IPv4 (NAT64), Network Address Translator + IPv4/IPv4 (NAT44), and IPv6 and IPv4 firewall devices, and a + mechanism to reduce application keepalive traffic. PCP is designed + to be implemented in the context of Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs) and + small NATs (e.g., residential NATs), as well as with dual-stack and + IPv6-only Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) routers, and all of the + currently known transition scenarios towards IPv6-only CPE routers. + PCP allows hosts to operate servers for a long time (e.g., a network- + attached home security camera) 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 or an IPv6 + firewall integrated in their CPE router. + + PCP allows applications to create mappings from an external IP + address, protocol, and port to an internal IP address, protocol, 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, protocol, and port for + the incoming connection. This is usually done in an application- + specific manner. For example, a computer game might use a rendezvous + server specific to that game (or specific to that game developer), a + SIP phone would use a SIP proxy, and a client using DNS-Based Service + Discovery [RFC6763] would use DNS Update [RFC2136] [RFC3007]. PCP + does not provide this rendezvous function. The rendezvous function + may support IPv4, IPv6, or both. Depending on that support and the + application's support of IPv4 or IPv6, the PCP client may need an + IPv4 mapping, an IPv6 mapping, or both. + + Many NAT-friendly applications send frequent application-level + messages to ensure that 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 such NAT + keepalive messages by using PCP to learn (and influence) 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 include Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) to + create mappings for applications that establish additional streams or + accept incoming connections. ALGs incorporated into NATs may also + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + modify the application payload. Industry experience has shown that + these ALGs are detrimental to protocol evolution. PCP allows an + application to create its own mappings in NATs and firewalls, + reducing the incentive to deploy ALGs in NATs and firewalls. + +2. Scope + +2.1. Deployment Scenarios + + PCP can be used in various deployment scenarios, including: + + o Basic NAT [RFC3022] + + o Network Address and Port Translation [RFC3022], such as commonly + deployed in residential NAT devices + + o Carrier-Grade NAT [RFC6888] + + o Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) [RFC6333] + + o NAT that is Layer-2 Aware [L2NAT] + + o Dual-Stack Extra Lite [RFC6619] + + o NAT64, both Stateless [RFC6145] and Stateful [RFC6146] + + o IPv4 and IPv6 simple firewall control [RFC6092] + + o IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation (NPTv6) [RFC6296] + +2.2. Supported Protocols + + The PCP Opcodes defined in this document are designed to support + transport-layer protocols that use a 16-bit port number (e.g., TCP, + UDP, Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960], and + Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340]). Protocols + that do not use a port number (e.g., Resource Reservation Protocol + (RSVP), IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303], ICMP, and + ICMPv6) are supported for IPv4 firewall, IPv6 firewall, and NPTv6 + functions, but are out of scope for any NAT functions. + +2.3. Single-Homed Customer Premises Network + + PCP assumes a single-homed IP address model. That is, for a given IP + address of a host, only one default route exists to reach other hosts + on the Internet from that source IP address. This is important + because after a PCP mapping is created and an inbound packet (e.g., + TCP SYN) is rewritten and delivered to a host, the outbound response + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + (e.g., TCP SYNACK) has to go through the same (reverse) path so it + passes through the same NAT to have the necessary inverse rewrite + performed. This restriction exists because otherwise there would + need to be a PCP-enabled NAT for every egress (because the host could + not reliably determine which egress path packets would take), and 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 (because the other NATs might already have the necessary + external port mapped to another host). + +3. Terminology + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and + "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in + "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119]. + + Internal Host: + A host served by a NAT gateway, or protected by a firewall. This + is the host that will receive incoming traffic resulting from a + PCP mapping request, or the host that initiated an implicit + dynamic outbound mapping (e.g., by sending a TCP SYN) across a + firewall or a NAT. + + Remote Peer Host: + A host with which an internal host is communicating. This can + include another internal host (or even the same internal host); if + a NAT is involved, the NAT would need to hairpin the traffic + [RFC4787]. + + Internal Address: + The address of an internal host served by a NAT gateway or + protected by a firewall. + + External Address: + The address of an internal host as seen by other remote peers 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. + + Endpoint-Dependent Mapping (EDM): A term applied to NAT operation + where an implicit mapping created by outgoing traffic (e.g., TCP + SYN) from a single internal address, protocol, and port to + different remote peers and ports may be assigned different + external ports, and a subsequent PCP mapping request for that + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + internal address, protocol, and port may be assigned yet another + different external port. This term encompasses both Address- + Dependent Mapping and Address and Port-Dependent Mapping + [RFC4787]. + + Endpoint-Independent Mapping (EIM): A term applied to NAT operation + where all mappings from a single internal address, protocol, and + port to different remote peers and ports are all assigned the same + external address and port. + + Remote Peer Address: + The address of a remote peer, as seen by the internal host. A + remote address is generally a publicly routable address. In the + case of a remote peer that is itself served by a NAT gateway, the + remote address may in fact be the remote peer'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 that does not implement PCP, the presence of the + THIRD_PARTY option in the MAP request signifies that the specified + address, rather than the source IP address of the PCP request + packet, should be used as the internal address for the mapping. + + Mapping, Port Mapping, Port Forwarding: + A NAT mapping creates a relationship between an internal IP + address, protocol, and port, and an external IP address, protocol, + and port. More specifically, it creates a translation rule where + packets destined *to* the external IP address, protocol, and port + have their destination address and port translated to the internal + address and port, and conversely, packets *from* the internal IP + address, protocol, and port have their source address and port + translated to the external address and port. In the case of a + pure firewall, the "mapping" is the identity function, translating + an internal IP address, protocol, and port number to the same + external IP address, protocol, and port number. Firewall + filtering, applied in addition to that identity mapping function, + is separate from the mapping itself. + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Mapping Types: + There are three dimensions to classifying mapping types: how they + are created (implicitly/explicitly), their primary purpose + (outbound/inbound), and how they are deleted (dynamic/static). + Implicit mappings are created as a side effect of some other + operation; explicit mappings are created by a mechanism explicitly + dealing with mappings. Outbound mappings exist primarily to + facilitate outbound communication; inbound mappings exist + primarily to facilitate inbound communication. Dynamic mappings + are deleted when their lifetime expires, or through other protocol + action; static mappings are permanent until the user chooses to + delete them. + + * Implicit dynamic mappings are created implicitly as a side + effect of traffic such as an outgoing TCP SYN or outgoing UDP + packet. Such packets were not originally designed explicitly + for creating NAT (or firewall) state, but they can have that + effect when they pass through a NAT (or firewall) device. + Implicit dynamic mappings usually have a finite lifetime, + though this lifetime is generally not known to the client using + them. + + * Explicit dynamic mappings are created as a result of explicit + PCP MAP and PEER requests. Like a DHCP address lease, explicit + dynamic mappings have a finite lifetime, and this lifetime is + communicated to the client. As with a DHCP address lease, if + the client wants a mapping to persist the client must prove + that it is still present by periodically renewing the mapping + to prevent it from expiring. If a PCP client goes away, then + any mappings it created will be automatically cleaned up when + they expire. + + * Explicit static mappings are created by manual configuration + (e.g., via command-line interface or other user interface) and + persist until the user changes that manual configuration. + + 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 the + lifetime, the mapping is deleted unless the lifetime is extended + by action by the internal host (e.g., sending more traffic or + sending another PCP request). + + Static mappings are, by their nature, always explicit. Static + mappings differ from explicit dynamic mappings in that their + lifetime is effectively infinite (they exist until manually + removed), but otherwise they behave exactly the same as explicit + MAP mappings. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + While all mappings are, by necessity, bidirectional (most Internet + communication requires information to flow in both directions for + successful operation), when talking about mappings, it can be + helpful to identify them loosely according to their 'primary' + purpose. + + * Outbound mappings exist primarily to enable outbound + communication. For example, when a host calls connect() to + make an outbound connection, a NAT gateway will create an + implicit dynamic outbound mapping to facilitate that outbound + communication. + + * Inbound mappings exist primarily to enable listening servers to + receive inbound connections. Generally, when a client calls + listen() to listen for inbound connections, a NAT gateway will + not implicitly create any mapping to facilitate that inbound + communication. A PCP MAP request can be used explicitly to + create a dynamic inbound mapping to enable the desired inbound + communication. + + Explicit static (manual) mappings and explicit dynamic (MAP) + mappings both allow internal hosts to receive inbound traffic that + is not in direct response to any immediately preceding outbound + communication (i.e., to allow internal hosts to operate a "server" + that is accessible to other hosts on the Internet). + + PCP Client: + A PCP software instance responsible for issuing PCP requests to a + PCP server. Several independent PCP clients can exist on the same + host. Several PCP clients can be located in the same local + network. A PCP client can issue PCP requests on behalf of a + third-party device for which it is authorized to do so. An + interworking function from Universal Plug and Play Internet + Gateway Device (UPnP IGDv1 [IGDv1]) to PCP 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-Controlled Device: + A NAT or firewall that controls or rewrites packet flows between + internal hosts and remote peer hosts. PCP manages the mappings on + this device. + + PCP Server: + A PCP software instance that resides on the PCP-Controlled Device + that receives PCP requests from the PCP client and creates + appropriate state in response to that request. + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Subscriber: + The unit of billing for a commercial ISP. A subscriber may have a + single IP address from the commercial ISP (which can be shared + among multiple hosts using a NAT gateway, thereby making them + appear to be a single host to the ISP) or may have multiple IP + addresses provided by the commercial ISP. In either case, the IP + address or addresses provided by the ISP may themselves be further + translated by a Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) operated by the ISP. + +4. Relationship between PCP Server and Its PCP-Controlled Device + + The PCP server receives and responds to PCP requests. The PCP server + functionality is typically a capability of a NAT or firewall device, + as shown in Figure 1. It is also possible for the PCP functionality + to be provided by some other device, which communicates with the + actual NAT(s) or firewall(s) via some other proprietary mechanism, as + long as from the PCP client's perspective such split operation is + indistinguishable from the integrated case. + + +-----------------+ + +------------+ | NAT or firewall | + | PCP client |-<network>-+ with +---<Internet> + +------------+ | PCP server | + +-----------------+ + + Figure 1: PCP-Enabled NAT or Firewall + + A NAT or firewall device, between the PCP client and the Internet, + might implement simple or advanced firewall functionality. This may + be a side effect of the technology implemented by the device (e.g., a + network address and port translator, by virtue of its port rewriting, + normally requires connections to be initiated from an inside host + towards the Internet), or this might be an explicit firewall policy + to deny unsolicited traffic from the Internet. Some firewall devices + deny certain unsolicited traffic from the Internet (e.g., TCP, UDP to + most ports) but allow certain other unsolicited traffic from the + Internet (e.g., UDP port 500 and IP ESP) [RFC6092]. Such default + filtering (or lack thereof) is out of scope of PCP itself. If a + client device wants to receive traffic and supports PCP, and does not + possess prior knowledge of such default filtering policy, it SHOULD + use PCP to request the necessary mappings to receive the desired + traffic. + +5. Note on Fixed-Size Addresses + + For simplicity in building and parsing request and response packets, + PCP always uses fixed-size 128-bit IP address fields for both IPv6 + addresses and IPv4 addresses. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + When the address field holds an IPv6 address, the fixed-size 128-bit + IP address field holds the IPv6 address stored as is. + + When the address field holds an IPv4 address, an IPv4-mapped IPv6 + address [RFC4291] is used (::ffff:0:0/96). This has the first 80 + bits set to zero and the next 16 set to one, while its last 32 bits + are filled with the IPv4 address. This is unambiguously + distinguishable from a native IPv6 address, because an IPv4-mapped + IPv6 address [RFC4291] would not be valid for a mapping. + + When checking for an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, all of the first 96 + bits MUST be checked for the pattern -- it is not sufficient to check + for ones in bits 81-96. + + The all-zeros IPv6 address MUST be expressed by filling the + fixed-size 128-bit IP address field with all zeros (::). + + The all-zeros IPv4 address MUST be expressed by 80 bits of zeros, + 16 bits of ones, and 32 bits of zeros (::ffff:0:0). + +6. Protocol Design Note + + PCP can be viewed as a request/response protocol, much like many + other UDP-based request/response protocols, and can be implemented + perfectly well as such. It can also be viewed as what might be + called a hint/notification protocol, and this observation can help + simplify implementations. + + Rather than viewing the message streams between PCP client and PCP + server as following a strict request/response pattern, where every + response is associated with exactly one request, the message flows + can be viewed as two somewhat independent streams carrying + information in opposite directions: + + o A stream of hints flowing from PCP client to PCP server, where the + client indicates to the server what it would like the state of its + mappings to be, and + + o A stream of notifications flowing from PCP server to PCP client, + where the server informs the clients what the state of its + mappings actually is. + + To an extent, some of this approach is required anyway in a UDP-based + request/response protocol, since UDP packets can be lost, duplicated, + or reordered. + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + In this view of the protocol, the client transmits hints to the + server at various intervals signaling its desires, and the server + transmits notifications to the client signaling the actual state of + its mappings. These two message flows are loosely correlated in that + a client request (hint) usually elicits a server response + (notification), but only loosely, in that a client request may result + in no server response (in the case of packet loss), and a server + response may be generated gratuitously without an immediately + preceding client request (in the case where server configuration + change, e.g., change of external IP address on a NAT gateway, results + in a change of mapping state). + + The exact times that client requests are sent are influenced by a + client timing state machine taking into account whether (i) the + client has not yet received a response from the server for a prior + request (retransmission), or (ii) the client has previously received + a response from the server saying how long the indicated mapping + would remain active (renewal). This design philosophy is the reason + why PCP's retransmissions and renewals are exactly the same packet on + the wire. Typically, retransmissions are sent with exponentially + increasing intervals as the client waits for the server to respond, + whereas renewals are sent with exponentially decreasing intervals as + the expiry time approaches, but, from the server's point of view, + both packets are identical, and both signal the client's desire that + the stated mapping exist or continue to exist. + + A PCP server usually sends responses as a direct result of client + requests, but not always. For example, if a server is too overloaded + to respond, it is allowed to silently ignore a request message and + let the client retransmit. Also, if external factors cause a NAT + gateway or firewall's configuration to change, then the PCP server + can send unsolicited responses to clients informing them of the new + state of their mappings. Such reconfigurations are expected to be + rare, because of the disruption they can cause to clients, but should + they happen, PCP provides a way for servers to communicate the new + state to clients promptly, without having to wait for the next + periodic renewal request. + + This design goal helps explain why PCP request and response messages + have no transaction ID, because such a transaction ID is unnecessary, + and would unnecessarily limit the protocol and unnecessarily + complicate implementations. A PCP server response (i.e., + notification) is self-describing and complete. It communicates the + internal and external addresses, protocol, and ports for a mapping, + and its remaining lifetime. If the client does in fact currently + want such a mapping to exist, then it can identify the mapping in + question from the internal address, protocol, and port, and update + its state to reflect the current external address and port, and + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + remaining lifetime. If a client does not currently want such a + mapping to exist, then it can safely ignore the message. No client + action is required for unexpected mapping notifications. In today's + world, a NAT gateway can have a static mapping, and the client device + has no explicit knowledge of this, and no way to change the fact. + Also, in today's world, a client device can be connected directly to + the public Internet, with a globally routable IP address, and, in + this case, it effectively has "mappings" for all of its listening + ports. Such a device has to be responsible for its own security and + cannot rely on assuming that some other network device will be + blocking all incoming packets. + +7. Common Request and Response Header Format + + All PCP messages are sent over UDP, with a maximum UDP payload length + of 1100 octets. The PCP messages contain a request or response + header containing an Opcode, any relevant Opcode-specific + information, and zero or more options. All numeric quantities larger + than a single octet (e.g., result codes, lifetimes, Epoch times, + etc.) are represented in conventional IETF network order, i.e., most + significant octet first. Non-numeric quantities are represented as + is on all platforms, with no byte swapping (e.g., IP addresses and + ports are placed in PCP messages using the same representation as + when placed in IP or TCP headers). + + 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 Sections 10, 11, and + 12. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +7.1. 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Version = 2 |R| Opcode | Reserved | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Requested Lifetime (32 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | PCP Client's IP Address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + : : + : (optional) Opcode-specific information : + : : + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + : : + : (optional) PCP Options : + : : + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 2: Common Request Packet Format + + These fields are described below: + + Version: This document specifies protocol version 2. PCP clients + and servers compliant with this document use the value 2. This + field is used for version negotiation as described in Section 9. + + R: Indicates Request (0) or Response (1). + + Opcode: A 7-bit value specifying the operation to be performed. MAP + and PEER Opcodes are defined in Sections 11 and 12. + + Reserved: 16 reserved bits. MUST be zero on transmission and MUST + be ignored on reception. + + Requested Lifetime: An unsigned 32-bit integer, in seconds, ranging + from 0 to 2^32-1 seconds. This is used by the MAP and PEER + Opcodes defined in this document for their requested lifetime. + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + PCP Client's IP Address: The source IPv4 or IPv6 address in the IP + header used by the PCP client when sending this PCP request. An + IPv4 address is represented using an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. + The PCP Client IP Address in the PCP message header is used to + detect an unexpected NAT on the path between the PCP client and + the PCP-controlled NAT or firewall device. See Section 8.1. + + Opcode-specific information: Payload data for this Opcode. The + length of this data is determined by the Opcode definition. + + PCP Options: Zero, one, or more options that are legal for both a + PCP request and for this Opcode. See Section 7.3. + +7.2. 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Version = 2 |R| Opcode | Reserved | Result Code | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Lifetime (32 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Epoch Time (32 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Reserved (96 bits) | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + : : + : (optional) Opcode-specific response data : + : : + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + : (optional) Options : + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 3: Common Response Packet Format + + These fields are described below: + + Version: Responses from servers compliant with this specification + MUST use version 2. This is set by the server. + + R: Indicates Request (0) or Response (1). All Responses MUST use 1. + This is set by the server. + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Opcode: The 7-bit Opcode value. The server copies this value 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 7.4 for + values. This is set by the server. + + Lifetime: An unsigned 32-bit integer, in seconds, ranging from 0 to + 2^32-1 seconds. On an error response, this indicates how long + clients should assume they'll get the same error response from + that PCP server if they repeat the same request. On a success + response for the PCP Opcodes that create a mapping (MAP and PEER), + the Lifetime field indicates the lifetime for this mapping. This + is set by the server. + + Epoch Time: The server's Epoch Time value. See Section 8.5 for + discussion. This value is set by the server, in both success and + error responses. + + Reserved: 96 reserved bits. For requests that were successfully + parsed, this MUST be sent as 0, MUST be ignored when received. + This is set by the server. For requests that were not + successfully parsed, the server copies the last 96 bits of the PCP + Client's IP Address field from the request message into this + corresponding 96-bit field of the response. + + Opcode-specific information: Payload data for this Opcode. The + length of this data is determined by the Opcode definition. + + PCP Options: Zero, one, or more options that are legal for both a + PCP response and for this Opcode. See Section 7.3. + +7.3. Options + + A PCP Opcode can be extended with one or more options. Options can + be used in requests and responses. The design decisions in this + specification about whether to include a given piece of information + in the base Opcode format or in an option were an engineering trade- + off between packet size and code complexity. For information that is + usually (or always) required, placing it in the fixed Opcode data + results in simpler code to generate and parse the packet, because the + information is a fixed location in the Opcode data, but wastes space + in the packet in the event that field is all zeros because the + information is not needed or not relevant. For information that is + required less often, placing it in an option results in slightly more + complicated code to generate and parse packets containing that + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + option, but saves space in the packet when that information is not + needed. Placing information in an option also means that an + implementation that never uses that information doesn't even need to + implement code to generate and parse it. For example, a client that + never requests mappings on behalf of some other device doesn't need + to implement code to generate the THIRD_PARTY option, and a PCP + server that doesn't implement the necessary security measures to + create third-party mappings safely doesn't need to implement code to + parse the THIRD_PARTY option. + + 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: 8 bits. Its most significant bit indicates if this + option is mandatory (0) or optional (1) to process. + + Reserved: 8 bits. MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be + ignored on reception. + + Option Length: 16 bits. Indicates the length of the enclosed data, + in octets. Options with length of 0 are allowed. Options that + are not a multiple of 4 octets long are followed by one, two, or + three 0 octets to pad their effective length in the packet to be a + multiple of 4 octets. The Option Length reflects the semantic + length of the option, not including any padding octets. + + Data: Option data. + + If several options are included in a PCP request, they MAY be encoded + in any order by the PCP client, but MUST be processed by the PCP + server in the order in which they appear. It is the responsibility + of the PCP client to ensure that the server has sufficient room to + reply without exceeding the 1100-octet size limit; if its reply would + exceed that size, the server generates an error. + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If, while processing a PCP request, including its options, an error + is encountered that causes a PCP error response to be generated, the + PCP request MUST cause no state change in the PCP server or the + PCP-controlled device (i.e., it rolls back any tentative changes it + might have made while processing the request). Such an error + response MUST consist of a complete copy of the request packet with + the error code and other appropriate fields set in the header. + + An option MAY appear more than once in a request or in a response, if + permitted by the definition of the option. If the option's + definition allows the option to appear only once but it appears more + than once in a request, and the option is understood by the PCP + server, the PCP server MUST respond with the MALFORMED_OPTION result + code. If the PCP server encounters an invalid option (e.g., PCP + option length is longer than the UDP packet length), the error + MALFORMED_OPTION SHOULD be returned (rather than MALFORMED_REQUEST), + as that helps the client better understand how the packet was + malformed. If a PCP response would have exceeded the maximum PCP + message size, the PCP server SHOULD respond with MALFORMED_REQUEST. + + If the overall option structure of a request cannot successfully be + parsed (e.g., a nonsensical option length), the PCP server MUST + generate an error response with code MALFORMED_OPTION. + + If the overall option structure of a request is valid, then how each + individual option is handled is determined by the most significant + bit in the option code. If the most significant bit is set, handling + this option is optional, and a PCP server MAY process or ignore this + option, entirely at its discretion. If the most significant bit is + clear, handling this option is mandatory, and a PCP server MUST + return the error MALFORMED_OPTION if the option contents are + malformed, or UNSUPP_OPTION if the option is unrecognized, + unimplemented, or disabled, or if the client is not authorized to use + the option. In error responses, all options are returned. In + success responses, all processed options are included and unprocessed + options are not included. + + Because the PCP client cannot reject a response containing an Option, + PCP clients MUST ignore Options that they do not understand that + appear in responses, including Options in the mandatory-to-process + range. Naturally, if a client explicitly requests an Option where + correct execution of that Option requires processing the Option data + in the response, that client SHOULD implement code to do that. + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Different options are valid for different Opcodes. For example: + + o The THIRD_PARTY option is valid for both MAP and PEER Opcodes. + + o The FILTER option is valid only for the MAP Opcode (for the PEER + Opcode it would have no meaning). + + o The PREFER_FAILURE option is valid only for the MAP Opcode (for + the PEER Opcode, similar semantics are automatically implied). + +7.4. 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 encounters multiple errors + during processing of a request, it SHOULD use the most specific error + message. Each error code below is classified as either a 'long + lifetime' error or a 'short lifetime' error, 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 a + 30-second lifetime and long lifetime errors use a 30-minute lifetime. + + 0 SUCCESS: Success. + + 1 UNSUPP_VERSION: The version number at the start of the PCP Request + header is not recognized by this PCP server. This is a long + lifetime error. This document describes PCP version 2. + + 2 NOT_AUTHORIZED: The requested operation is disabled for this PCP + client, or the PCP client requested an operation that cannot be + fulfilled by the PCP server's security policy. This is a long + lifetime error. + + 3 MALFORMED_REQUEST: The request could not be successfully parsed. + This is a long lifetime error. + + 4 UNSUPP_OPCODE: Unsupported Opcode. This is a long lifetime error. + + 5 UNSUPP_OPTION: Unsupported option. This error only occurs if the + option is in the mandatory-to-process range. This is a long + lifetime error. + + 6 MALFORMED_OPTION: Malformed option (e.g., appears too many times, + invalid length). This is a long lifetime error. + + 7 NETWORK_FAILURE: The PCP server or the device it controls is + experiencing a network failure of some sort (e.g., has not yet + obtained an external IP address). This is a short lifetime error. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + 8 NO_RESOURCES: Request is well-formed and valid, but the server has + insufficient resources to complete the requested operation at this + time. For example, the NAT device cannot create more mappings at + this time, is short of CPU cycles or memory, or is unable to + handle the request due to some other temporary condition. The + same request may succeed in the future. This is a system-wide + error, different from USER_EX_QUOTA. This can be used as a catch- + all error, should no other error message be suitable. This is a + short lifetime error. + + 9 UNSUPP_PROTOCOL: Unsupported transport protocol, e.g., SCTP in a + NAT that handles only UDP and TCP. This is a long lifetime error. + + 10 USER_EX_QUOTA: This attempt to create a new mapping would exceed + this subscriber's port quota. This is a short lifetime error. + + 11 CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL: The suggested external port and/or + external address cannot be provided. This error MUST only be + returned for: + * MAP requests that included the PREFER_FAILURE option + (normal MAP requests will return an available external port) + * MAP requests for the SCTP protocol (PREFER_FAILURE is implied) + * PEER requests + + See Section 13.2 for details of the PREFER_FAILURE Option. The + error lifetime depends on the reason for the failure. + + 12 ADDRESS_MISMATCH: The source IP address of the request packet does + not match the contents of the PCP Client's IP Address field, due + to an unexpected NAT on the path between the PCP client and the + PCP-controlled NAT or firewall. This is a long lifetime error. + + 13 EXCESSIVE_REMOTE_PEERS: 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 FILTER option. See Section 13.3 + for details of the FILTER Option. This is a long lifetime error. + +8. General PCP Operation + + PCP messages MUST be sent over UDP [RFC0768]. Every PCP request + generates at least one response, so PCP does not need to run over a + reliable transport protocol. + + When receiving multiple identical requests, the PCP server will + generally generate identical responses -- barring cases where the PCP + server's state changes between those requests due to other activity. + As an example of how such a state change could happen, a request + could be received while the PCP-controlled device has no mappings + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + available, and the PCP server will generate an error response. If + mappings become available and then another copy of that same request + arrives (perhaps duplicated in transit in the network), the PCP + server will allocate a mapping and generate a non-error response. A + PCP client MUST handle such updated responses for any request it + sends, most notably to support rapid recovery (Section 14). Also see + the Protocol Design Note (Section 6). + +8.1. General PCP Client: Generating a Request + + This section details operation specific to a PCP client, for any + Opcode. Procedures specific to the MAP Opcode are described in + Section 11, and procedures specific to the PEER Opcode are described + in Section 12. + + Prior to sending its first PCP message, the PCP client determines + which server to use. The PCP client performs the following steps to + determine its PCP server: + + 1. if a PCP server is configured (e.g., in a configuration file or + via DHCP), that single configuration source is used as the list + of PCP server(s), else + + 2. the default router list (for IPv4 and IPv6) is used as the list + of PCP server(s). Thus, if a PCP client has both an IPv4 and + IPv6 address, it will have an IPv4 PCP server (its IPv4 default + router) for its IPv4 mappings, and an IPv6 PCP server (its IPv6 + default router) for its IPv6 mappings. + + For the purposes of this document, only a single PCP server address + is supported. Should future specifications define configuration + methods that provide a longer list of PCP server addresses, those + specifications will define how clients select one or more addresses + from that list. + + With that PCP server address, the PCP client formulates its PCP + request. The PCP request contains a PCP common header, PCP Opcode + and payload, and (possibly) options. As with all UDP client software + on any operating system, when several independent PCP clients exist + on the same host, each uses a distinct source port number to + disambiguate their requests and replies. The PCP client's source + port SHOULD be randomly generated [RFC6056]. + + The PCP client MUST include the source IP address of the PCP message + in the PCP request. This is typically its own IP address; see + Section 16.4 for how this can be coded. This is used to detect an + unexpected NAT on the path between the PCP client and the + PCP-controlled NAT or firewall device, to avoid wasting resources on + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + the PCP-controlled NAT creating pointless non-functional mappings. + When such an intervening non-PCP-aware inner NAT is detected, + mappings must first be created by some other means in the inner NAT, + before mappings can be usefully created in the outer PCP-controlled + NAT. Having created mappings in the inner NAT by some other means, + the PCP client should then use the inner NAT's external address as + the client IP address, to signal to the outer PCP-controlled NAT that + the client is aware of the inner NAT, and has taken steps to create + mappings in it by some other means, so that mappings created in the + outer NAT will not be a pointless waste of resources. + +8.1.1. PCP Client Retransmission + + PCP clients are responsible for reliable delivery of PCP request + messages. If a PCP client fails to receive an expected response from + a server, the client must retransmit its message. The + retransmissions MUST use the same Mapping Nonce value (see Sections + 11.1 and 12.1). The client begins the message exchange by + transmitting a message to the server. The message exchange continues + for as long as the client wishes to maintain the mapping, and + terminates when the PCP client is no longer interested in the PCP + transaction (e.g., the application that requested the mapping is no + longer interested in the mapping) or (optionally) when the message + exchange is considered to have failed according to the retransmission + mechanism described below. + + The client retransmission behavior is controlled and described by the + following variables: + + RT: Retransmission timeout, calculated as described below + + IRT: Initial retransmission time, SHOULD be 3 seconds + + MRC: Maximum retransmission count, SHOULD be 0 (0 indicates no + maximum) + + MRT: Maximum retransmission time, SHOULD be 1024 seconds + + MRD: Maximum retransmission duration, SHOULD be 0 (0 indicates no + maximum) + + RAND: Randomization factor, calculated as described below + + With each message transmission or retransmission, the client sets RT + according to the rules given below. If RT expires before a response + is received, the client retransmits the request and computes a new + RT. + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Each of the computations of a new RT include a new randomization + factor (RAND), which is a random number chosen with a uniform + distribution between -0.1 and +0.1. The randomization factor is + included to minimize synchronization of messages transmitted by PCP + clients. The algorithm for choosing a random number does not need to + be cryptographically sound. The algorithm SHOULD produce a different + sequence of random numbers from each invocation of the PCP client. + + The RT value is initialized based on IRT: + + RT = (1 + RAND) * IRT + + RT for each subsequent message transmission is based on the previous + value of RT, subject to the upper bound on the value of RT specified + by MRT. If MRT has a value of 0, there is no upper limit on the + value of RT, and MRT is treated as "infinity". The new value of RT + is calculated as shown below, where RTprev is the current value of + RT: + + RT = (1 + RAND) * MIN (2 * RTprev, MRT) + + MRC specifies an upper bound on the number of times a client may + retransmit a message. Unless MRC is zero, the message exchange fails + once the client has transmitted the message MRC times. + + MRD specifies an upper bound on the length of time a client may + retransmit a message. Unless MRD is zero, the message exchange fails + once MRD seconds have elapsed since the client first transmitted the + message. + + If both MRC and MRD are non-zero, the message exchange fails whenever + either of the conditions specified in the previous two paragraphs are + met. If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit + the message until it receives a response or the client no longer + wants a mapping. + + Once a PCP client has successfully received a response from a PCP + server on that interface, it resets RT to a value randomly selected + in the range 1/2 to 5/8 of the mapping lifetime, as described in + Section 11.2.1, "Renewing a Mapping", and sends subsequent PCP + requests for that mapping to that same server. + + Note: If the server's state changes between retransmissions and + the server's response is delayed or lost, the state in the PCP + client and server may not be synchronized. This is not unique to + PCP, but also occurs with other network protocols (e.g., TCP). In + the unlikely event that such de-synchronization occurs, PCP heals + itself after lifetime seconds. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +8.2. General PCP Server: Processing a Request + + This section details operation specific to a PCP server. Processing + SHOULD be performed in the order of the following paragraphs. + + A PCP server MUST only accept normal (non-THIRD_PARTY) PCP requests + from a client on the same interface from which it would normally + receive packets from that client, and it MUST silently ignore PCP + requests arriving on any other interface. For example, a residential + NAT gateway accepts PCP requests only when they arrive on its (LAN) + interface connecting to the internal network, and silently ignores + any PCP requests arriving on its external (WAN) interface. A PCP + server that supports THIRD_PARTY requests MAY be configured to accept + THIRD_PARTY requests on other configured interfaces (see Section 13.1 + for details on the THIRD_PARTY Option). + + Upon receiving a request, 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 that is sent back to the PCP + client. Processing of an Opcode and its options is specific to each + Opcode. + + Error responses have the same packet layout as success responses, + with certain fields from the request copied into the response, and + other fields assigned by the PCP server set as indicated in Figure 3. + + Copying request fields into the response is important because this is + what enables a client to identify to which request a given response + pertains. For Opcodes that are understood by the PCP server, it + follows the requirements of that Opcode to copy the appropriate + fields. For Opcodes that are not understood by the PCP server, it + simply generates the UNSUPP_OPCODE response and copies fields from + the PCP header and copies the rest of the PCP payload as is (without + attempting to interpret it). + + All responses (both error and success) contain the same Opcode as the + request, but with the "R" bit set. + + Any error response has a non-zero result code, and is created by: + + o Copying the entire UDP payload, or 1100 octets, whichever is less, + and zero-padding the response to a multiple of 4 octets if + necessary + o Setting the R bit + o Setting the result code + o Setting the Lifetime, Epoch Time, and Reserved fields + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + o Updating other fields in the response, as indicated by 'set by the + server' in the PCP response field description + + A success response has a zero result code, and is created by: + + o Copying the first 4 octets of request packet header + o Setting the R bit + o Setting the result code to zero + o Setting the Lifetime, Epoch Time, and Reserved fields + o Possibly setting Opcode-specific response data if appropriate + o Adding any processed options to the response message + + If the received PCP request message is less than 2 octets long, it is + silently dropped. + + If the R bit is set, the message is silently dropped. + + If the first octet (version) is a version that is not supported, a + response is generated with the UNSUPP_VERSION result code, and the + Version Negotiation steps detailed in Section 9 are followed. + + Otherwise, if the version is supported but the received message is + shorter than 24 octets, the message is silently dropped. + + If the server is overloaded by requests (from a particular client or + from all clients), it MAY simply silently discard requests, as the + requests will be retried by PCP clients, or it MAY generate the + NO_RESOURCES error response. + + If the length of the message exceeds 1100 octets, is not a multiple + of 4 octets, or is too short for the Opcode in question, it is + invalid and a MALFORMED_REQUEST response is generated, and the + response message is truncated to 1100 octets. + + The PCP server compares the source IP address (from the received IP + header) with the field PCP Client IP Address. If they do not match, + the error ADDRESS_MISMATCH MUST be returned. This is done to detect + and prevent accidental use of PCP where a non-PCP-aware NAT exists + between the PCP client and PCP server. If the PCP client wants such + a mapping, it needs to ensure that the PCP field matches its apparent + IP address from the perspective of the PCP server. + +8.3. General PCP Client: Processing a Response + + The PCP client receives the response and verifies that the source IP + address and port belong to the PCP server of a previously sent PCP + request. If not, the response is silently dropped. + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If the received PCP response message is less than 4 octets long, it + is silently dropped. + + If the R bit is clear, the message is silently dropped. + + If the error code is UNSUPP_VERSION, Version Negotiation processing + continues as described in Section 9. + + Responses shorter than 24 octets, longer than 1100 octets, or not a + multiple of 4 octets are invalid and ignored. + + The PCP client then validates that the Opcode matches a previous PCP + request. If the response does not match a previous PCP request, the + response is ignored. The response is further matched by comparing + fields in the response Opcode-specific data to fields in the request + Opcode-specific data, as described by the processing for that Opcode. + If that fails, the response is ignored. + + After these matches are successful, the PCP client checks the Epoch + Time field (see Section 8.5) to determine if it needs to restore its + state to the PCP server. A PCP client SHOULD be prepared to receive + multiple responses from the PCP server at any time after a single + request is sent. This allows the PCP server to inform the client of + mapping changes such as an update or deletion. For example, a PCP + server might send a SUCCESS response and, after a configuration + change on the PCP server, later send a NOT_AUTHORIZED response. A + PCP client MUST be prepared to receive responses for requests it + never sent (which could have been sent by a previous PCP instance on + this same host, or by a previous host that used the same client IP + address, or by a malicious attacker) by simply ignoring those + unexpected messages. + + If the error ADDRESS_MISMATCH is received, it indicates the presence + of a NAT between the PCP client and PCP server. Procedures to + resolve this problem are beyond the scope of this document. + + For both success and error responses, a Lifetime value is returned. + The lifetime indicates how long this response should be considered + valid by the client (i.e for success results, how long the mapping + will last, and for failure results how long the same failure + condition should be expected to persist). The PCP client SHOULD + impose an upper limit on this returned value (to protect against + absurdly large values, e.g., 5 years), detailed in Section 15, + "Mapping Lifetime and Deletion". + + If the result code is 0 (SUCCESS), the request succeeded. + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If the result code is not 0, the request failed, and the PCP client + SHOULD NOT resend the same request for the indicated lifetime of the + error (as limited by the sanity checking detailed in Section 15). + + 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. + +8.4. Multi-Interface Issues + + Hosts that 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 + is the case for a Global Unicast Address (GUA) [RFC3587] or limited + scope as is the case for a Unique Local Address (ULA) [RFC4193]). + + IPv6 addresses with global reachability (e.g., GUAs) SHOULD be used + as the source address when generating a PCP request. IPv6 addresses + without global reachability (e.g., ULAs) 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 the client delete its mappings to the previous + privacy address after it no longer needs those old mappings. + + Due to the ubiquity of IPv4 NAT, IPv4 addresses with limited scope + (e.g., private addresses [RFC1918]) MAY be used as the source + interface when generating a PCP request. + +8.5. Epoch + + Every PCP response sent by the PCP server includes an Epoch Time + field. This time field increments by one every second. Anomalies in + the received Epoch Time value provide a hint to PCP clients that a + PCP server state loss may have occurred. Clients respond to such + state loss hints by promptly renewing their mappings, so as to + quickly restore any lost state at the PCP server. + + If the PCP server resets or loses the state of its explicit dynamic + mappings (that is, those mappings created by PCP requests), due to + reboot, power failure, or any other reason, it MUST reset its Epoch + time to its initial starting value (usually zero) to provide this + hint to PCP clients. After resetting its Epoch time, the PCP server + resumes incrementing the Epoch Time value by one every second. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Similarly, if the external IP address(es) of the NAT (controlled by + the PCP server) changes, the Epoch time MUST be reset. A PCP server + MAY maintain one Epoch Time value for all PCP clients or MAY maintain + distinct Epoch Time values (per PCP client, per interface, or based + on other criteria); this choice is implementation-dependent. + + Whenever a client receives a PCP response, the client validates the + received Epoch Time value according to the procedure below, using + integer arithmetic: + + o If this is the first PCP response the client has received from + this PCP server, the Epoch Time value is treated as necessarily + valid, otherwise + + * If the current PCP server Epoch time (curr_server_time) is less + than the previously received PCP server Epoch time + (prev_server_time) by more than one second, then the client + treats the Epoch time as obviously invalid (time should not go + backwards). The server Epoch time apparently going backwards + by *up to* one second is not deemed invalid, so that minor + packet reordering on the path from PCP server to PCP client + does not trigger a cascade of unnecessary mapping renewals. If + the server Epoch time passes this check, then further + validation checks are performed: + + + The client computes the difference between its + current local time (curr_client_time) and the + time the previous PCP response was received from this PCP + server (prev_client_time): + client_delta = curr_client_time - prev_client_time; + + + The client computes the difference between the + current PCP server Epoch time (curr_server_time) and the + previously received Epoch time (prev_server_time): + server_delta = curr_server_time - prev_server_time; + + + If client_delta+2 < server_delta - server_delta/16 + or server_delta+2 < client_delta - client_delta/16, + then the client treats the Epoch Time value as invalid, + else the client treats the Epoch Time value as valid. + + o The client records the current time values for use in its next + comparison: + prev_client_time = curr_client_time + prev_server_time = curr_server_time + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If the PCP client determined that the Epoch Time value it received + was invalid, then it concludes that the PCP server may have lost + state, and promptly renews all its active port mapping leases + following the mapping recreation procedure described in + Section 16.3.1. + + Notes: + + o The client clock MUST never go backwards. If curr_client_time is + found to be less than prev_client_time, then this is a client bug, + and how the client deals with this client bug is implementation + specific. + + o The calculations above are constructed to allow client_delta and + server_delta to be computed as unsigned integer values. + + o The "+2" in the calculations above is to accommodate quantization + errors in client and server clocks (up to one-second quantization + error each in server and client time intervals). + + o The "/16" in the calculations above is to accommodate inaccurate + clocks in low-cost devices. This allows for a total discrepancy + of up to 1/16 (6.25%) to be considered benign; e.g., if one clock + were to run too fast by 3% while the other clock ran too slow by + 3%, then the client would not consider this difference to be + anomalous or indicative of a restart having occurred. This + tolerance is strict enough to be effective at detecting reboots, + while not being so strict as to generate false alarms. + +9. Version Negotiation + + A PCP client sends its requests using PCP version number 2. Should + later updates to this document specify different message formats with + a version number greater than 2, it is expected that PCP servers will + still support version 2 in addition to the newer version(s). + However, in the event that a server returns a response with result + code UNSUPP_VERSION, the client MAY log an error message to inform + the user that it is too old to work with this server. + + Should later updates to this document specify different message + formats with a version number greater than 2, and backwards + compatibility be desired, this first octet can be used for forward + and backward compatibility. + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If future PCP versions greater than 2 are specified, version + negotiation proceeds as follows: + + 1. The client sends its first request using the highest + (i.e., presumably 'best') version number it supports. + + 2. If the server supports that version, it responds normally. + + 3. If the server does not support that version, it replies giving a + result containing the result 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). + + 4. If the client receives an UNSUPP_VERSION result 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). If the version number in the UNSUPP_VERSION + response is zero then that means this is a NAT-PMP server + [RFC6886], and a client MAY choose to communicate with it using + the older NAT-PMP protocol, as described in Appendix A. + + 5. If the client receives an UNSUPP_VERSION result containing a + version it does not support, then the client SHOULD try the next- + lower version supported by the client. The attempt to use the + next-lower version repeats until the client has tried version 2. + If using version 2 fails, 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 + or the returned Lifetime value, whichever is smaller. By + automatically retrying in 30 minutes, the protocol accommodates + an upgrade of the PCP server. + +10. Introduction to MAP and PEER Opcodes + + There are four uses for the MAP and PEER Opcodes defined in this + document: + + o a host operating a server and wanting an incoming connection + (Section 10.1); + + o a host operating a client and server on the same port + (Section 10.2); + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + o a host operating a client and wanting to optimize the application + keepalive traffic (Section 10.3); and + + o a host operating a client and wanting to restore lost state in its + NAT (Section 10.4). + + These are discussed in the following sections, and a (non-normative) + state diagram is provided in Section 16.5. + + When operating a server (see Sections 10.1 and 10.2), 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 address or + IPv6 address configured on one of its interfaces. It takes the union + of this knowledge to decide to which of its PCP servers to send the + request (e.g., an IPv4 address or an IPv6 address), and whether to + send one or two MAP requests for each of its interfaces (e.g., if the + PCP client has only an IPv4 address but wants both IPv6 and IPv4 + listeners, it sends a MAP request containing the all-zeros IPv6 + address in the Suggested External Address field, and sends a second + MAP request containing the all-zeros IPv4 address in the Suggested + External Address field). If the PCP client has both an IPv4 and IPv6 + address, and only wants an IPv4 listener, it sends one MAP request + from its IPv4 address (if the PCP server supports NAT44 or IPv4 + firewall) or one MAP request from its IPv6 address (if the PCP server + supports NAT64). The PCP client can simply request the desired + mapping to determine if the PCP server supports the desired mapping. + Applications that embed IP addresses in payloads (e.g., FTP, SIP) + will find it beneficial to avoid address family translation, if + possible. + + The MAP and PEER requests include a Suggested External IP Address + field. Some PCP-controlled devices, especially CGN but also multi- + homed NPTv6 networks, have a pool of public-facing IP addresses. PCP + allows the client to indicate if it wants a mapping assigned on a + specific address of that pool or any address of that pool. Some + applications will break if mappings are created on different IP + addresses (e.g., active mode FTP), so applications should carefully + consider the implications of using this capability. Static mappings + for that internal address (e.g., those created by a command-line + interface on the PCP server or PCP-controlled device) may exist to a + certain external address, and if the suggested external IP address is + the IPv4 or IPv6 all-zeros address, PCP SHOULD assign its mappings to + the same external address, as this can also help applications using a + mix of both static mappings and PCP-created mappings. If, on the + other hand, the suggested external IP address contains a non-zero IP + address the PCP server SHOULD create a mapping to that external + address, even if there are other mappings from that same internal + address to a different external address. Once an internal address + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + has no implicit dynamic mappings and no explicit dynamic mappings in + the PCP-controlled device, a subsequent implicit or explicit mapping + for that internal address MAY be assigned to a different External + address. Generally, this reassignment would occur when a CGN device + is load balancing newly seen internal addresses to its public pool of + external addresses. + + The following table summarizes how various common PCP deployments use + IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. + + The 'internal' address is implicitly the same as the source IP + address of the PCP request, except when the THIRD_PARTY option is + used. + + The 'external' address is the Suggested External Address field of the + MAP or PEER request, and its address family is usually the same as + the 'internal' address family, except when technologies like NAT64 + are used. + + The 'remote peer' address is the remote peer IP address of the PEER + request or the FILTER option of the MAP request, and is always the + same address family as the 'internal' address, even when NAT64 is + used. In NAT64, the IPv6 PCP client is not necessarily aware of the + NAT64 or aware of the actual IPv4 address of the remote peer, so it + expresses the IPv6 address from its perspective, as shown in Figure + 5. + + internal external PCP remote peer actual remote peer + -------- ------- --------------- ------------------ + IPv4 firewall IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 + IPv6 firewall IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 + NAT44 IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 + NAT46 IPv4 IPv6 IPv4 IPv6 + NAT64 IPv6 IPv4 IPv6 IPv4 + NPTv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 + + Figure 5: Address Families with MAP and PEER + + Note that the internal address and the remote peer address are always + the same address family, and the external address and the actual + remote peer address are always the same address family. + + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +10.1. 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 host needs to (a) create + a mapping from a public IP address, protocol, and port to itself + using the MAP Opcode, as described in Section 11; (b) publish that + public IP address, protocol, and port via some sort of rendezvous + server (e.g., DNS, a SIP message, or a proprietary protocol); and + (c) ensure that any other non-PCP-speaking packet filtering + middleboxes on the path (e.g., host-based firewall, network-based + firewall, or other NATs) will also allow the incoming traffic. + Publishing the public IP address and port is out of scope of this + specification. To accomplish (a), the host follows the procedures + described in this section. + + As normal, the application needs to begin listening on a port. Then, + the application constructs a PCP message with the MAP Opcode, with + the external address set to the appropriate all-zeros address, + depending on whether it wants a public IPv4 or IPv6 address. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + The following pseudocode shows how PCP can be reliably used to + operate a server: + + /* start listening on the local server port */ + int s = socket(...); + bind(s, ...); + listen(s, ...); + + getsockname(s, &internal_sockaddr, ...); + bzero(&external_sockaddr, sizeof(external_sockaddr)); + + while (1) + { + /* Note: The "time_to_send_pcp_request()" check below includes: + * 1. Sending the first request + * 2. Retransmitting requests due to packet loss + * 3. Resending a request due to impending lease expiration + * 4. Resending a request due to server state loss + * The PCP packet sent is identical in all four cases; from + * the PCP server's point of view they are the same operation. + * The suggested external address and port may be updated + * repeatedly during the lifetime of the mapping. + * Other fields in the packet generally remain unchanged. + */ + if (time_to_send_pcp_request()) + pcp_send_map_request(internal_sockaddr.sin_port, + internal_sockaddr.sin_addr, + &external_sockaddr, /* will be zero the first time */ + requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime); + + if (pcp_response_received()) + update_rendezvous_server("Client Ident", external_sockaddr); + + if (received_incoming_connection_or_packet()) + process_it(s); + + if (other_work_to_do()) + do_it(); + + /* ... */ + + block_until_we_need_to_do_something_else(); + } + + Figure 6: Pseudocode for Using PCP to Operate a Server + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +10.2. 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, protocol, and ports to a rendezvous + service (which is out of scope of this document), and initiates an + outbound connection from that same source address and same port. 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 11, and + receive a positive PCP response before it sends any packets from that + port. + + Discussion: In general, a PCP client doesn't know in advance if it + is behind a NAT or firewall. On detecting that the host has + connected to a new network, the PCP client can attempt to request + a mapping using PCP; if that succeeds, then the client knows it + has successfully created a mapping. If, after multiple retries, + it has received no PCP response, then either the client is *not* + behind a NAT or firewall and has unfettered connectivity or the + client *is* behind a NAT or firewall that doesn't support PCP (and + the client may still have working connectivity by virtue of static + mappings previously created manually by the user). Retransmitting + PCP requests multiple times before giving up and assuming + unfettered connectivity adds delay in that case. Initiating + outbound TCP connections immediately without waiting for PCP + avoids this delay, and will work if the NAT has endpoint- + independent mapping (EIM) behavior, but may fail if the NAT has + endpoint-dependent mapping (EDM) behavior. Waiting enough time to + allow an explicit PCP MAP mapping to be created (if possible) + first ensures that the same external port will then be used for + all subsequent implicit dynamic mappings (e.g., TCP SYNs) sent + from the specified internal address, protocol, and port. PCP + supports both EIM and EDM NATs, so clients need to assume they may + be dealing with an EDM NAT. In this case, the client will + experience more reliable connectivity if it attempts explicit PCP + MAP requests first, before initiating any outbound TCP connections + from that internal address and port. For further information on + using PCP with EDM NATs, see Section 16.1. + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + The following pseudocode shows how PCP can be used to operate a + symmetric client and server: + + /* start listening on the local server port */ + int s = socket(...); + bind(s, ...); + listen(s, ...); + + getsockname(s, &internal_sockaddr, ...); + bzero(&external_sockaddr, sizeof(external_sockaddr)); + + while (1) + { + /* Note: The "time_to_send_pcp_request()" check below includes: + * 1. Sending the first request + * 2. Retransmitting requests due to packet loss + * 3. Resending a request due to impending lease expiration + * 4. Resending a request due to server state loss + */ + if (time_to_send_pcp_request()) + pcp_send_map_request(internal_sockaddr.sin_port, + internal_sockaddr.sin_addr, + &external_sockaddr, /* will be zero the first time */ + requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime); + + if (pcp_response_received()) + update_rendezvous_server("Client Ident", external_sockaddr); + + if (received_incoming_connection_or_packet()) + process_it(s); + + if (need_to_make_outgoing_connection()) + make_outgoing_connection(s, ...); + + if (data_to_send()) + send_it(s); + + if (other_work_to_do()) + do_it(); + + /* ... */ + + block_until_we_need_to_do_something_else(); + } + + Figure 7: Pseudocode for Using PCP to Operate a + Symmetric Client/Server + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +10.3. For Reducing NAT or Firewall Keepalive Messages + + A host operating a client (e.g., XMPP client, SIP client) sends from + a port, and may receive responses, but never accepts incoming + connections from other remote peers on this port. It wants to ensure + that the flow to its remote peer is not terminated (due to + inactivity) by an on-path NAT or firewall. To accomplish this, the + application uses the procedure described in this section. + + Middleboxes, such as NATs or firewalls, generally need to see + occasional traffic or they 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, keep state alive on the remote + peer, 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 application first connects to its + server, as normal. Afterwards, it issues a PCP request with the PEER + Opcode as described in Section 12 to learn and/or extend the lifetime + of its mapping. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + The following pseudocode shows how PCP can be reliably used with a + dynamic socket, for the purposes of reducing application keepalive + messages: + + /* make outgoing connection to server */ + int s = socket(...); + connect(s, &remote_peer, ...); + + getsockname(s, &internal_sockaddr, ...); + bzero(&external_sockaddr, sizeof(external_sockaddr)); + + while (1) + { + /* Note: The "time_to_send_pcp_request()" check below includes: + * 1. Sending the first request + * 2. Retransmitting requests due to packet loss + * 3. Resending a request due to impending lease expiration + * 4. Resending a request due to server state loss + */ + if (time_to_send_pcp_request()) + pcp_send_peer_request(internal_sockaddr.sin_port, + internal_sockaddr.sin_addr, + &external_sockaddr, /* will be zero the first time */ + remote_peer, requested_lifetime, &assigned_lifetime); + + if (data_to_send()) + send_it(s); + + if (received_incoming_data()) + process_it(s); + + if (other_work_to_do()) + do_it(); + + /* ... */ + + block_until_we_need_to_do_something_else(); + } + + Figure 8: Pseudocode Using PCP with a Dynamic Socket + +10.4. For Restoring Lost Implicit TCP Dynamic Mapping State + + After a NAT loses state (e.g., because of a crash or power failure), + it is useful for clients to re-establish TCP mappings on the NAT. + This allows servers on the Internet to see traffic from the same IP + address and port, so that sessions can be resumed exactly where they + were left off. This can be useful for long-lived connections + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + (e.g., instant messaging) or for connections transferring a lot of + data (e.g., FTP). This can be accomplished by first establishing a + TCP connection normally and then sending a PEER request/response and + remembering the external address and external port. Later, when the + NAT has lost state, the client can send a PEER request with the + suggested external port and suggested external address remembered + from the previous session, which will create a mapping in the NAT + that functions exactly as an implicit dynamic mapping. The client + then resumes sending TCP data to the server. + + Note: This procedure works well for TCP, provided: + + (i) the NAT creates a new implicit dynamic outbound mapping + only for outbound TCP segments with the SYN bit set (i.e., the + newly booted NAT silently drops outbound data segments from the + client when the NAT does not have an active mapping for those + segments), and + + (ii) the newly booted NAT does not send a TCP RST in response + to receiving unexpected inbound TCP segments. + + This procedure works less well for UDP, because as soon as + outbound UDP traffic is seen by the NAT, a new UDP implicit + dynamic outbound mapping will be created (probably on a different + port). + +11. MAP Opcode + + This section defines an Opcode that controls inbound forwarding from + a NAT (or firewall) to an internal host. + + MAP: Create an explicit dynamic mapping between an Internal Address + + Port and an External Address + Port. + + PCP servers SHOULD provide a configuration option to allow + administrators to disable MAP support if they wish. + + Mappings created by PCP MAP requests are, by definition, endpoint- + independent mappings (EIMs) with endpoint-independent filtering (EIF) + (unless the FILTER option is used), even on a NAT that usually + creates endpoint-dependent mapping (EDM) or endpoint-dependent + filtering (EDF) for outgoing connections, since the purpose of an + (unfiltered) MAP mapping is to receive inbound traffic from any + remote endpoint, not from only one specific remote endpoint. + + Note also that all NAT mappings (created by PCP or otherwise) are by + necessity bidirectional and symmetric. For any packet going in one + direction (in or out) that is translated by the NAT, a reply going in + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + the opposite direction needs to have the corresponding opposite + translation done so that the reply arrives at the right endpoint. + This means that if a client creates a MAP mapping, and then later + sends an outgoing packet using the mapping's internal address, + protocol, and port, the NAT should translate that packet's internal + address and port to the mapping's external address and port, so that + replies addressed to the external address and port are correctly + translated back to the mapping's internal address and port. + + On operating systems that allow multiple listening servers to bind to + the same internal address, protocol, and port, servers MUST ensure + that they have exclusive use of that internal address, protocol, and + port (e.g., by binding the port using INADDR_ANY, or using + SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE or similar) before sending their PCP MAP request, + to ensure that no other PCP clients on the same machine are also + listening on the same internal protocol and internal port. + + 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 use PCP + separately to create ICMP mappings for those flows. + + The operation of the MAP Opcode is described in this section. + +11.1. MAP Operation Packet Formats + + The MAP Opcode has a similar packet layout for both requests and + responses. If the assigned external IP address and port in the PCP + response always match the internal IP address and port from the PCP + request, then the functionality is purely a firewall; otherwise, the + functionality is a Network Address Translator that might also perform + firewall-like functions. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + The following diagram shows the format of the Opcode-specific + information in a request for the MAP Opcode. + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Mapping Nonce (96 bits) | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Internal Port | Suggested External Port | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Suggested External IP Address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 9: MAP Opcode Request + + These fields are described below: + + Requested lifetime (in common header): Requested lifetime of this + mapping, in seconds. The value 0 indicates "delete". + + Mapping Nonce: Random value chosen by the PCP client. See + Section 11.2, "Generating a MAP Request". Zero is a legal value + (but unlikely, occurring in roughly one in 2^96 requests). + + Protocol: Upper-layer 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. This field contains 17 (UDP) if the Opcode + is intended to create a UDP mapping. The value 0 has a special + meaning for 'all protocols'. + + Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored + when received. + + Internal Port: Internal port for the mapping. The value 0 indicates + 'all ports', and is legal when the lifetime is zero (a delete + request), if the protocol does not use 16-bit port numbers, or the + client is requesting 'all ports'. If the protocol is zero + (meaning 'all protocols'), then internal port MUST be zero on + transmission and MUST be ignored on reception. + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Suggested External Port: Suggested external port for the mapping. + This is useful for refreshing a mapping, especially after the PCP + server loses state. If the PCP client does not know the external + port, or does not have a preference, it MUST use 0. + + Suggested External IP Address: Suggested external IPv4 or IPv6 + address. This is useful for refreshing a mapping, especially + after the PCP server loses state. If the PCP client does not know + the external address, or does not have a preference, it MUST use + the address-family-specific all-zeros address (see Section 5). + + The internal address for the request is the source IP address of the + PCP request message itself, unless the THIRD_PARTY option is used. + + The following diagram shows the format of Opcode-specific information + in a response packet for the MAP Opcode: + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Mapping Nonce (96 bits) | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Internal Port | Assigned External Port | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Assigned External IP Address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 10: MAP Opcode Response + + These fields are described below: + + Lifetime (in common header): On an error response, this indicates + how long clients should assume they'll get the same error response + from the PCP server if they repeat the same request. On a success + response, this indicates the lifetime for this mapping, in + seconds. + + Mapping Nonce: Copied from the request. + + Protocol: Copied from the request. + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored + when received. + + Internal Port: Copied from the request. + + Assigned External Port: On a success response, this is the assigned + external port for the mapping. On an error response, the + suggested external port is copied from the request. + + Assigned External IP Address: On a success response, this is the + assigned external IPv4 or IPv6 address for the mapping. An IPv4 + address is encoded using IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. On an error + response, the suggested external IP address is copied from the + request. + +11.2. Generating a MAP Request + + This section describes the operation of a PCP client when sending + requests with the MAP Opcode. + + The request MAY contain values in the Suggested External Port and + Suggested External IP Address fields. This allows the PCP client to + attempt to rebuild lost state on the PCP server, which improves the + chances of existing connections surviving, and helps the PCP client + avoid having to change information maintained at its 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 grant the suggested external IP address, protocol, and port, and + in that case it will assign a different external IP address and port. + + A PCP client MUST be written assuming that it may *never* be assigned + the external port it suggests. In the case of recreating state after + a NAT gateway crash, the suggested external port, being one that was + previously allocated to this client, is likely to be available for + this client to continue using. In all other cases, the client MUST + assume that it is unlikely that its suggested external port will be + granted. For example, when many subscribers are sharing a Carrier- + Grade NAT, popular ports such as 80, 443, and 8080 are likely to be + in high demand. At most one client can have each of those popular + ports for each external IP address, and all the other clients will be + assigned other, dynamically allocated, external ports. Indeed, some + ISPs may, by policy, choose not to grant those external ports to + *anyone*, so that none of their clients are *ever* assigned external + ports 80, 443, or 8080. + + If the protocol does not use 16-bit port numbers (e.g., RSVP, IP + protocol number 46), the port number MUST be zero. This will cause + all traffic matching that protocol to be mapped. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 43] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If the client wants all protocols mapped, it uses protocol 0 (zero) + and internal port 0 (zero). + + The Mapping Nonce value is randomly chosen by the PCP client, + following accepted practices for generating unguessable random + numbers [RFC4086], and is used as part of the validation of PCP + responses (see below) by the PCP client, and validation for mapping + refreshes by the PCP server. The client MUST use a different mapping + nonce for each PCP server it communicates with, and it is RECOMMENDED + to choose a new random mapping nonce whenever the PCP client is + initialized. The client MAY use a different mapping nonce for every + mapping. + +11.2.1. Renewing a Mapping + + An existing mapping SHOULD have its lifetime extended by the PCP + client for as long as the client wishes to have that mapping continue + to exist. To do this, the PCP client sends a new MAP request + indicating the internal port. The PCP MAP request SHOULD also + include the currently assigned external IP address and port in the + Suggested External IP Address and Suggested External Port fields, so + if the PCP server has lost state it can recreate the lost mapping + with the same parameters. + + The PCP client SHOULD renew the mapping before its expiry time; + otherwise, it will be removed by the PCP server (see Section 15, + "Mapping Lifetime and Deletion"). To reduce the risk of inadvertent + synchronization of renewal requests, a random jitter component should + be included. It is RECOMMENDED that PCP clients send a single + renewal request packet at a time chosen with uniform random + distribution in the range 1/2 to 5/8 of expiration time. If no + SUCCESS response is received, then the next renewal request should be + sent 3/4 to 3/4 + 1/16 to expiration, and then another 7/8 to 7/8 + + 1/32 to expiration, 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 a flood of ever-closer-together requests in the last + few seconds before a mapping expires). + +11.3. Processing a MAP Request + + This section describes the operation of a PCP server when processing + a request with the MAP Opcode. Processing SHOULD be performed in the + order of the following paragraphs. + + The Protocol, Internal Port, and Mapping Nonce fields from the MAP + request are copied into the MAP response. The THIRD_PARTY option, if + present, and processed by the PCP server, is also copied into the MAP + response. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 44] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If the requested lifetime is non-zero, then: + + o If both the protocol and internal port are non-zero, it indicates + a request to create a mapping or extend the lifetime of an + existing mapping. If the PCP server or PCP-controlled device does + not support the protocol, the UNSUPP_PROTOCOL error MUST be + returned. + + o If the protocol is non-zero and the internal port is zero, it + indicates a request to create or extend a mapping for all incoming + traffic for that entire protocol -- a 'wildcard' (all-ports) + mapping for that protocol. If this request cannot be fulfilled in + its entirety, the UNSUPP_PROTOCOL error MUST be returned. + + o If both the protocol and internal port are zero, it indicates a + request to create or extend a mapping for all incoming traffic for + all protocols (commonly called a 'DMZ host'). If this request + cannot be fulfilled in its entirety, the UNSUPP_PROTOCOL error + MUST be returned. + + o If the protocol is zero and the internal port is non-zero, then + the request is invalid and the PCP server MUST return a + MALFORMED_REQUEST error to the client. + + If the requested lifetime is zero, it indicates a request to delete + an existing mapping. + + Further processing of the lifetime is described in Section 15, + "Mapping Lifetime and Deletion". + + If operating in the Simple Threat Model (Section 18.1), and the + internal port, protocol, and internal address match an existing + explicit dynamic mapping, but the mapping nonce does not match, the + request MUST be rejected with a NOT_AUTHORIZED error with the + lifetime of the error indicating duration of that existing mapping. + The PCP server only needs to remember one Mapping Nonce value for + each explicit dynamic mapping. This specification makes no statement + about mapping nonce with the Advanced Threat Model. + + If the internal port, protocol, and internal address match an + existing static mapping (which will have no nonce), then a PCP reply + is sent giving the external address and port of that static mapping, + using the nonce from the PCP request. The server does not record the + nonce. + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 45] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If an option with value less than 128 exists (i.e., mandatory to + process) 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. + + 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, including no rewriting), 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, 1:1 NAT44, and NPTv6 [RFC6296], all of which modify + addresses but not port numbers, and pure firewalls, which modify + neither the address nor the port. + + It is possible that a mapping might already exist for a requested + internal address, protocol, and port. If so, the PCP server takes + the following actions: + + 1. If the MAP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option, but the + suggested external address and port do not match the external + address and port of the existing mapping, the PCP server MUST + return CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL. + + 2. If the existing mapping is static (created outside of PCP), the + PCP server MUST return the external address and port of the + existing mapping in its response and SHOULD indicate a lifetime + of 2^32-1 seconds, regardless of the suggested external address + and port in the request. + + 3. If the existing mapping is explicit dynamic inbound (created by a + previous MAP request), the PCP server MUST return the existing + external address and port in its response, regardless of the + suggested external address and port in the request. + Additionally, the PCP server MUST update the lifetime of the + existing mapping, in accordance with Section 15, "Mapping + Lifetime and Deletion". + + 4. If the existing mapping is dynamic outbound (created by outgoing + traffic or a previous PEER request), the PCP server SHOULD create + a new explicit inbound mapping, replicating the ports and + addresses from the outbound mapping (but the outbound mapping + continues to exist, and remains in effect if the explicit inbound + mapping is later deleted). + + If no mapping exists for the internal address, protocol, and port, + and the PCP server is able to create a mapping using the suggested + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 46] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + external address and port, it SHOULD do so. This is beneficial for + re-establishing state lost in the PCP server (e.g., due to a reboot). + There are, however, cases where the PCP server is not able to create + a new mapping using the suggested external address and port: + + o The suggested external address, protocol, and port is already + assigned to another existing explicit or implicit mapping + (i.e., is already forwarding traffic to some other internal + address and port). + + o The suggested external address, protocol, and port is already used + by the NAT gateway for one of its own services, for example, TCP + port 80 for the NAT gateway's own configuration web pages, or UDP + ports 5350 and 5351, used by PCP itself. A PCP server MUST NOT + create client mappings for external UDP ports 5350 or 5351. + + o The suggested external address, protocol, and port is otherwise + prohibited by the PCP server's policy. + + o The suggested external IP address, protocol, or suggested port are + invalid or invalid combinations (e.g., external address 127.0.0.1, + ::1, a multicast address, or the suggested port is not valid for + the protocol). + + o The suggested external address does not belong to the NAT gateway. + + o The suggested external address is not configured to be used as an + external address of the firewall or NAT gateway. + + If the PCP server cannot assign the suggested external address, + protocol, and port, then: + + o If the request contained the PREFER_FAILURE option, then the PCP + server MUST return CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL. + + o If the request did not contain the PREFER_FAILURE option, and the + PCP server can assign some other external address and port for + that protocol, then the PCP server MUST do so and return the newly + assigned external address and port in the response. In no case is + the client penalized for a 'poor' choice of suggested external + address and port. The suggested external address and port may be + used by the server to guide its choice of what external address + and port to assign, but in no case do they cause the server to + fail to allocate an external address and port where otherwise it + would have succeeded. The presence of a non-zero suggested + external address or port is merely a hint; it never does any harm. + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 47] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + 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, an additional corresponding UDP mapping MUST NOT be + automatically created. + + Mappings typically consume state on the PCP-controlled device, and it + is RECOMMENDED that a per-host and/or per-subscriber limit be + enforced by the PCP server to prevent exhausting the mapping state. + If this limit is exceeded, the result code USER_EX_QUOTA is returned. + + If all of the preceding operations were successful (did not generate + an error response), then the requested mapping is created or + refreshed as described in the request and a SUCCESS response is + built. + +11.4. Processing a MAP Response + + This section describes the operation of the PCP client when it + receives a PCP response for the MAP Opcode. + + After performing common PCP response processing, the response is + further matched with a previously sent MAP request by comparing the + internal IP address (the destination IP address of the PCP response, + or other IP address specified via the THIRD_PARTY option), the + protocol, the internal port, and the mapping nonce. Other fields are + not compared, because the PCP server sets those fields. The PCP + server will send a Mapping Update (Section 14.2) if the mapping + changes (e.g., due to IP renumbering). + + If the result code is NO_RESOURCES and the request was for the + creation or renewal of a mapping, then the PCP client SHOULD NOT send + further requests for any new mappings to that PCP server for the + (limited) value of the lifetime. If the result code is NO_RESOURCES + and the request was for the deletion of a mapping, then the PCP + client SHOULD NOT send further requests of *any kind* to that PCP + server for the (limited) value of the lifetime. + + On a success response, the PCP client can use the external IP address + and port as needed. Typically, the PCP client will communicate the + external IP address and port to another host on the Internet using an + application-specific rendezvous mechanism such as DNS SRV records. + + After a success response, for as long as renewal is desired, the PCP + client MUST set a timer or otherwise schedule an event to renew the + mapping before its lifetime expires. Renewing a mapping is performed + by sending another MAP request, exactly as described in Section 11.2, + except that the suggested external address and port SHOULD be set to + the values received in the response. From the PCP server's point of + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 48] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + view a MAP request to renew a mapping is identical to a MAP request + to create a new mapping, and is handled identically. Indeed, in the + event of PCP server state loss, a renewal request from a PCP client + will appear to the server to be a request to create a new mapping, + with a particular suggested external address and port, which happen + to be what the PCP server previously assigned. See also + Section 16.3.1, "Recreating Mappings". + + On an error response, the client SHOULD NOT repeat the same request + to the same PCP server within the lifetime returned in the response. + +11.5. Address Change Events + + A customer premises router might obtain a new external IP address, + for a variety of reasons including a reboot, power outage, DHCP lease + expiry, or other action by the ISP. If this occurs, traffic + forwarded to a host's previous address might be delivered to another + host that now has that address. This affects all mapping types, + whether implicit or explicit. This same problem already occurs today + when a host's IP address is reassigned, without PCP and without an + ISP-operated CGN. The solution is the same as today: the problems + associated with host renumbering are caused by host renumbering, and + are eliminated if host renumbering is avoided. PCP defined in this + document does not provide machinery to reduce the host renumbering + problem. + + When an internal host changes its internal IP address (e.g., by + having a different address assigned by the DHCP server), the NAT (or + firewall) will continue to send traffic to the old IP address. + Typically, the internal host will no longer receive traffic sent to + that old IP address. Assuming the internal host wants to continue + receiving traffic, it needs to install new mappings for its new IP + address. The Suggested 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 external IP address. Note + that such host renumbering 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. + + A host might gain or lose interfaces while existing mappings are + active (e.g., Ethernet cable plugged in or removed, joining/leaving a + WiFi network). Because of this, if the PCP client is sending a PCP + request to maintain state in the PCP server, it SHOULD ensure that + those PCP requests continue to use the same interface (e.g., when + refreshing mappings). If the PCP client is sending a PCP request to + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 49] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + create new state in the PCP server, it MAY use a different source + interface or different source address. + +11.6. Learning the External IP Address Alone + + NAT-PMP [RFC6886] includes a mechanism to allow clients to learn the + external IP address alone, without also requesting a port mapping. + NAT-PMP was designed for residential NAT gateways, where such an + operation makes sense because a typical residential NAT gateway has + only one external IP address. PCP has broader scope, and also + supports Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs) that may have a pool of external + IP addresses, not just one. A client may not be assigned any + particular external IP address from that pool until it has at least + one implicit, explicit, or static port mapping, and even then only + for as long as that mapping remains valid. Client software that just + wishes to display the user's external IP address for cosmetic + purposes can achieve that by requesting a short-lived mapping (e.g., + to the Discard service (TCP/9 or UDP/9) or some other port) and then + displaying the resulting external IP address. However, once that + mapping expires a subsequent implicit or explicit dynamic mapping + might be mapped to a different external IP address. + +12. PEER Opcode + + This section defines an Opcode for controlling dynamic outbound + mappings. + + PEER: Create a new dynamic outbound mapping to a remote peer's IP + address and port, or extend the lifetime of an existing + outbound mapping. + + The use of this Opcodes is described in this section. + + PCP servers SHOULD provide a configuration option to allow + administrators to disable PEER support if they wish. + + Because a mapping created or managed by PEER behaves almost exactly + like an implicit dynamic outbound mapping created as a side effect of + a packet (e.g., TCP SYN) sent by the host, mappings created or + managed using PCP PEER requests may be endpoint-independent mapping + (EIM) or endpoint-dependent mapping (EDM), with endpoint-independent + filtering (EIF) or endpoint-dependent filtering (EDF), consistent + with the existing behavior of the NAT gateway or firewall in question + for implicit outbound mappings it creates automatically as a result + of observing outgoing traffic from internal hosts. + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 50] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +12.1. PEER Operation Packet Formats + + The PEER Opcode allows a PCP client to create a new explicit dynamic + outbound mapping (which functions similarly to an outbound mapping + created implicitly when a host sends an outbound TCP SYN) or to + extend the lifetime of an existing outbound mapping. + + The following diagram shows the Opcode layout for the PEER Opcode. + The formats for the PEER request and response packets are aligned so + that related fields fall at the same offsets in the packet. + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Mapping Nonce (96 bits) | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Internal Port | Suggested External Port | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Suggested External IP Address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Remote Peer Port | Reserved (16 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Remote Peer IP Address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 11: PEER Opcode Request + + These fields are described below: + + Requested Lifetime (in common header): Requested lifetime of this + mapping, in seconds. Note that it is not possible to reduce the + lifetime of a mapping (or delete it, with requested lifetime=0) + using PEER. + + Mapping Nonce: Random value chosen by the PCP client. See + Section 12.2, "Generating a PEER Request". Zero is a legal value + (but unlikely, occurring in roughly one in 2^96 requests). + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 51] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Protocol: Upper-layer 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 mapping. This field contains 17 (UDP) if the Opcode is + describing a UDP mapping. Protocol MUST NOT be zero. + + Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission and + MUST be ignored on reception. + + Internal Port: Internal port for the mapping. Internal port MUST + NOT be zero. + + Suggested External Port: Suggested external port for the mapping. + If the PCP client does not know the external port, or does not + have a preference, it MUST use 0. + + Suggested External IP Address: Suggested external IP address for the + mapping. If the PCP client does not know the external address, or + does not have a preference, it MUST use the address-family- + specific all-zeros address (see Section 5). + + Remote Peer Port: Remote peer's port for the mapping. Remote peer + port MUST NOT be zero. + + Reserved: 16 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission and + MUST be ignored on reception. + + Remote Peer IP Address: Remote peer's IP address. This is from the + perspective of the PCP client, so that the PCP client does not + need to concern itself with NAT64 or NAT46 (which both cause the + client's idea of the remote peer's IP address to differ from the + remote peer's actual IP address). This field allows the PCP + client and PCP server to disambiguate multiple connections from + the same port on the internal host to different servers. An IPv6 + address is represented directly, and an IPv4 address is + represented using the IPv4-mapped address syntax (Section 5). + + When attempting to re-create a lost mapping, the suggested external + IP address and port are set to the External IP Address and Port + fields received in a previous PEER response from the PCP server. On + an initial PEER request, the external IP address and port are set to + zero. + + Note that semantics similar to the PREFER_FAILURE option are + automatically implied by PEER requests. If the Suggested External IP + Address or Suggested External Port fields are non-zero, and the PCP + server is unable to honor the suggested external IP address, + protocol, or port, then the PCP server MUST return a + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 52] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL error response. The PREFER_FAILURE option is + neither required nor allowed in PEER requests, and if a PCP server + receives a PEER request containing the PREFER_FAILURE option it MUST + return a MALFORMED_REQUEST error response. + + The following diagram shows the Opcode response for the PEER Opcode: + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Mapping Nonce (96 bits) | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Internal Port | Assigned External Port | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Assigned External IP Address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Remote Peer Port | Reserved (16 bits) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Remote Peer IP Address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 12: PEER Opcode Response + + Lifetime (in common header): 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 PCP server if they repeat the same + request. + + Mapping Nonce: Copied from the request. + + Protocol: Copied from the request. + + Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission, MUST + be ignored on reception. + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 53] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Internal Port: Copied from request. + + Assigned External Port: On a success response, this is the assigned + external port for the mapping. On an error response, the + suggested external port is copied from the request. + + Assigned External IP Address: On a success response, this is the + assigned external IPv4 or IPv6 address for the mapping. On an + error response, the suggested external IP address is copied from + the request. + + Remote Peer Port: Copied from request. + + Reserved: 16 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission, MUST + be ignored on reception. + + Remote Peer IP Address: Copied from the request. + +12.2. Generating a PEER Request + + This section describes the operation of a client when generating a + message with the PEER Opcode. + + The PEER Opcode MAY be sent before or after establishing + bidirectional communication with the remote peer. + + If sent before, this is considered a PEER-created mapping that + creates a new dynamic outbound mapping in the PCP-controlled device. + + If sent after, this allows the PCP client to learn the IP address, + port, and lifetime of the assigned external address and port for the + existing implicit dynamic outbound mapping, and potentially to extend + this lifetime (for reducing NAT or firewall keepalive messages, as + described in Section 10.3). + + PEER requests are also useful for restoring mappings after a NAT has + lost its mapping state (e.g., due to a crash). + + The Mapping Nonce value is randomly chosen by the PCP client, + following accepted practices for generating unguessable random + numbers [RFC4086], and is used as part of the validation of PCP + responses (see below) by the PCP client, and validation for mapping + refreshes by the PCP server. The client MUST use a different mapping + nonce for each PCP server it communicates with, and it is RECOMMENDED + to choose a new random mapping nonce whenever the PCP client is + initialized. The client MAY use a different mapping nonce for every + mapping. + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 54] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + The PEER Opcode contains a Remote Peer Address field, which is always + from the perspective of the PCP client. Note that when the + PCP-controlled device is performing address family translation (NAT46 + or NAT64), the remote peer address from the perspective of the PCP + client is different from the remote peer address on the other side of + the address family translation device. + +12.3. Processing a PEER Request + + This section describes the operation of a server when receiving a + request with the PEER Opcode. Processing SHOULD be performed in the + order of the following paragraphs. + + The following fields from a PEER request are copied into the + response: Protocol, Internal Port, Remote Peer IP Address, Remote + Peer Port, and Mapping Nonce. + + When an implicit dynamic mapping is created, some NATs and firewalls + validate destination addresses and will not create an implicit + dynamic mapping if the destination address is invalid (e.g., + 127.0.0.1). If a PCP-controlled device does such validation for + implicit dynamic mappings, it SHOULD also do a similar validation of + the remote peer IP address, protocol, and port for PEER-created + explicit dynamic mappings. If the validation determines the remote + peer IP address of a PEER request is invalid, then no mapping is + created, and a MALFORMED_REQUEST error result is returned. + + On receiving the PEER Opcode, the PCP server examines the mapping + table for a matching five-tuple { Protocol, Internal Address, + Internal Port, Remote Peer Address, Remote Peer Port }. + + If no matching mapping is found, and the suggested external address + and port are either zero or can be honored for the specified + Protocol, a new mapping is created. By having the PEER create such a + mapping, we avoid a race condition between the PEER request and the + initial outgoing packet arriving at the NAT or firewall device first, + and allow PEER to be used to recreate a lost outbound dynamic mapping + (see Section 16.3.1, "Recreating Mappings"). Thereafter, this PEER- + created mapping is treated as if it was an implicit dynamic outbound + mapping (e.g., as if the PCP client sent a TCP SYN) and a lifetime + appropriate to such a mapping is returned (note: on many NATs and + firewalls, such mapping lifetimes are very short until bidirectional + traffic is seen by the NAT or firewall). + + If no matching mapping is found, and the suggested external address + and port cannot be honored, then no new state is created, and the + error CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL is returned. + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 55] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If a matching mapping is found, and no previous PEER Opcode was + successfully processed for this mapping, then the Suggested External + Address and Port values in the request are ignored, the lifetime of + that mapping is adjusted as described below, and information about + the existing mapping is returned. This allows a client to explicitly + extend the lifetime of an existing mapping and/or to learn an + existing mapping's external address, port, and lifetime. The mapping + nonce is remembered for this mapping. + + If operating in the Simple Threat Model (Section 18.1), and the + internal port, protocol, and internal address match a mapping that + already exists, but the mapping nonce does not match (that is, a + previous PEER request was processed), the request MUST be rejected + with a NOT_AUTHORIZED error with the lifetime of the error indicating + duration of that existing mapping. The PCP server only needs to + remember one Mapping Nonce value for each mapping. This + specification makes no statement about mapping nonce with the + Advanced Threat Model. + + Processing the Lifetime value of the PEER Opcode is described in + Section 15, "Mapping Lifetime and Deletion". Sending a PEER request + with a very short requested lifetime can be used to query the + lifetime of an existing mapping. So that PCP clients can reduce the + frequency of their NAT and firewall keepalive messages, it is + RECOMMENDED that lifetimes of mappings created or lengthened with + PEER be longer than the lifetimes of implicitly created mappings. + + If all of the preceding operations were successful (did not generate + an error response), then a SUCCESS response is generated, with the + Lifetime field containing the lifetime of the mapping. + + If a PEER-created or PEER-managed mapping is not renewed using PEER, + then it reverts to the NAT's usual behavior for implicit mappings. + For example, continued outbound traffic keeps the mapping alive, as + per the NAT or firewall device's existing policy. A PEER-created or + PEER-managed mapping may be terminated at any time by action of the + TCP client or server (e.g., due to TCP FIN or TCP RST), as per the + NAT or firewall device's existing policy. + +12.4. Processing a PEER Response + + This section describes the operation of a client when processing a + response with the PEER Opcode. + + After performing common PCP response processing, the response is + further matched with an outstanding PEER request by comparing the + internal IP address (the destination IP address of the PCP response, + or other IP address specified via the THIRD_PARTY option), the + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 56] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + protocol, the internal port, the remote peer address, the remote peer + port, and the mapping nonce. Other fields are not compared, because + the PCP server sets those fields to provide information about the + mapping created by the Opcode. The PCP server will send a Mapping + Update (Section 14.2) if the mapping changes (e.g., due to IP + renumbering). + + If the result code is NO_RESOURCES and the request was for the + creation or renewal of a mapping, then the PCP client SHOULD NOT send + further requests for any new mappings to that PCP server for the + (limited) value of the lifetime. + + On a successful response, the application can use 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 maintain state on its server (e.g., + "busy" / "away") more frequently than once an hour. If the response + indicates an unexpected IP address or port (e.g., due to IP + renumbering), the PCP client will want to re-establish its connection + to its remote server. + + If the PCP client wishes to keep this mapping alive beyond the + indicated lifetime, it MAY rely on continued inside-to-outside + traffic to ensure that the mapping will continue to exist, or it MAY + issue a new PCP request prior to the expiration. The recommended + timings for renewing PEER mappings are the same as for MAP mappings, + as described in Section 11.2.1. + + Note: Implementations need to expect the PEER response may contain + an external IP address with a different family than the remote + peer IP address, e.g., when NAT64 or NAT46 are being used. + +13. Options for MAP and PEER Opcodes + + This section describes options for the MAP and PEER Opcodes. These + options MUST NOT appear with other Opcodes, unless permitted by those + other Opcodes. + +13.1. THIRD_PARTY Option for MAP and PEER Opcodes + + This option is used when a PCP client wants to control a mapping to + an internal host other than itself. This is used with both MAP and + PEER Opcodes. + + Due to security concerns with the THIRD_PARTY option, this option + MUST NOT be implemented or used unless the network on which the PCP + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 57] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + messages are to be sent is fully trusted. For example, if access + control lists (ACLs) are installed on the PCP client, PCP server, and + the network between them, so those ACLs allow only communications + from a trusted PCP client to the PCP server. + + A management device would use this option to control a PCP server on + behalf of users. For example, a management device located in a + network operations center, which presents a user interface to end + users or to network operations staff, and issues PCP requests with + the THIRD_PARTY option to the appropriate PCP server. + + The THIRD_PARTY 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 | Reserved | Option Length=16 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Internal IP Address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 13: THIRD_PARTY Option + + The fields are described below: + + Internal IP Address: Internal IP address for this mapping. + + Option Name: THIRD_PARTY + Number: 1 + Purpose: Indicates the MAP or PEER request is for a host other + than the host sending the PCP option. + Valid for Opcodes: MAP, PEER + Length: 16 octets + May appear in: request. May appear in response only if it + appeared in the associated request. + Maximum occurrences: 1 + + A THIRD_PARTY option MUST NOT contain the same address as the source + address of the packet. This is because many PCP servers may not + implement the THIRD_PARTY option at all, and with those servers a + client redundantly using the THIRD_PARTY option to specify its own IP + address would cause such mapping requests to fail where they would + otherwise have succeeded. A PCP server receiving a THIRD_PARTY + option specifying the same address as the source address of the + packet MUST return a MALFORMED_REQUEST result code. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 58] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + A PCP server MAY be configured to permit or to prohibit the use of + the THIRD_PARTY option. If this option is permitted, properly + authorized clients may perform these operations on behalf of other + hosts. If this option is prohibited, and a PCP server receives a PCP + MAP request with a THIRD_PARTY option, it MUST generate a + UNSUPP_OPTION response. + + It is RECOMMENDED that customer premises equipment implementing a PCP + server be configured to prohibit third-party mappings by default. + With this default, if a user wants to create a third-party mapping, + the user needs to interact out-of-band with their customer premises + router (e.g., using its HTTP administrative interface). + + It is RECOMMENDED that service provider NAT and firewall devices + implementing a PCP server be configured to permit the THIRD_PARTY + option, when sent by a properly authorized host. If the packet + arrives from an unauthorized host, the PCP server MUST generate an + UNSUPP_OPTION error. + + Note that the THIRD_PARTY option is not needed for today's common + scenario of an ISP offering a single IP address to a customer who is + using NAT to share that address locally, since in this scenario all + the customer's hosts appear, from the point of view of the ISP, to be + a single host. + + When a PCP client is using the THIRD_PARTY option to make and + maintain mappings on behalf of some other device, it may be + beneficial if, where possible, the PCP client verifies that the other + device is actually present and active on the network. Otherwise, the + PCP client risks maintaining those mappings forever, long after the + device that required them has gone. This would defeat the purpose of + PCP mappings having a finite lifetime so that they can be + automatically deleted after they are no longer needed. + +13.2. PREFER_FAILURE Option for MAP Opcode + + This option is only used with the MAP Opcode. + + This option indicates that if the PCP server is unable to map both + the suggested external port and suggested external address, the PCP + server should not create a mapping. This differs from the behavior + without this option, which is to create a mapping. + + PREFER_FAILURE is never necessary for a PCP client to manage mappings + for itself, and its use causes additional work in the PCP client and + in the PCP server. This option exists for interworking with non-PCP + mapping protocols that have different semantics than PCP (e.g., UPnP + IGDv1 interworking [PNP-IGD-PCP], where the semantics of UPnP IGDv1 + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 59] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + only allow the UPnP IGDv1 client to dictate mapping a specific port), + or separate port allocation systems that allocate ports to a + subscriber (e.g., a subscriber-accessed web portal operated by the + same ISP that operates the PCP server). A PCP server MAY support + this option, if its designers wish to support such downstream devices + or separate port allocation systems. PCP servers that are not + intended to interface with such systems are not required to support + this option. PCP clients other than UPnP IGDv1 interworking clients + or other than a separate port allocation system SHOULD NOT use this + option because it results in inefficient operation, and they cannot + safely assume that all PCP servers will implement it. It is + anticipated that this option will be deprecated in the future as more + clients adopt PCP natively and the need for this option declines. + + The PREFER_FAILURE 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=2 | Reserved | Option Length=0 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 14: PREFER_FAILURE Option + + Option Name: PREFER_FAILURE + Number: 2 + Purpose: indicates that the PCP server should not create an + alternative mapping if the suggested external port and address + cannot be mapped. + Valid for Opcodes: MAP + Length: 0 + May appear in: request. May appear in response only if it + appeared in the associated request. + Maximum occurrences: 1 + + The result code CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL is returned if the suggested + external address, protocol, and port cannot be mapped. This can + occur because the external port is already mapped to another host's + outbound dynamic mapping, an inbound dynamic mapping, a static + mapping, or the same internal address, protocol, and port already + have an outbound dynamic mapping that is mapped to a different + external port than suggested. This can also occur because the + external address is no longer available (e.g., due to renumbering). + The server MAY set the lifetime in the response to the remaining + lifetime of the conflicting mapping + TIME_WAIT [RFC0793], rounded up + to the next larger integer number of seconds. + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 60] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If a PCP request contains the PREFER_FAILURE option and has zero in + the Suggested External Port field, then it is invalid. The PCP + server MUST reject such a message with the MALFORMED_OPTION error + code. + + 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. + + There can exist a race condition between the MAP Opcode using the + PREFER_FAILURE option and Mapping Update (Section 14.2). For + example, a previous host on the local network could have previously + had the same internal address, with a mapping for the same internal + port. At about the same moment that the current host sends a MAP + Request using the PREFER_FAILURE option, the PCP server could send a + spontaneous Mapping Update for the old mapping due to an external + configuration change, which could appear to be a reply to the new + mapping request. Because of this, the PCP client MUST validate that + the external IP address, protocol, port, and nonce in a success + response match the associated suggested values from the request. If + they do not match, it is because the Mapping Update was sent before + the MAP request was processed. + +13.3. FILTER Option for MAP Opcode + + This option is only used with the MAP Opcode. + + This option indicates that filtering incoming packets is desired. + The protocol being filtered is indicated by the Protocol field in the + MAP Request, and the remote peer IP address and remote peer port of + the FILTER option indicate the permitted remote peer's source IP + address and source port for packets from the Internet; other traffic + from other addresses is blocked. The remote 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 containing the FILTER option and + generating a successful response, the PCP-controlled device will drop + packets received on its public-facing interface that don't match the + filter fields. After dropping the packet, if its security policy + allows, the PCP-controlled device MAY also generate an ICMP error in + response to the dropped packet. + + The use of the FILTER option can be seen as a performance + optimization. Since all software using PCP to receive incoming + connections also has to deal with the case where it may be directly + connected to the Internet and receive unrestricted incoming TCP + connections and UDP packets, if it wishes to restrict incoming + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 61] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + traffic to a specific source address or group of source addresses, + such software already needs to check the source address of incoming + traffic and reject unwanted traffic. However, the FILTER option is a + particularly useful performance optimization for battery powered + wireless devices, because it can enable them to conserve battery + power by not having to wake up just to reject unwanted traffic. + + The FILTER 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=3 | Reserved | Option Length=20 | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Prefix Length | Remote Peer Port | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + | Remote Peer IP address (128 bits) | + | | + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Figure 15: 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. + + Option Name: FILTER + Number: 3 + Purpose: specifies a filter for incoming packets + Valid for Opcodes: MAP + Length: 20 octets + May appear in: request. May appear in response only if it + appeared in the associated request. + Maximum occurrences: as many as fit within maximum PCP message + size + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 62] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + The Prefix Length indicates how many bits of the address are used for + the filter. For IPv4 addresses (which are encoded using the + IPv4-mapped address format (::FFFF:0:0/96)), this means valid prefix + lengths are between 96 and 128 bits, inclusive. That is, add 96 to + the IPv4 prefix length. For IPv6 addresses, valid prefix lengths are + between 0 and 128 bits, inclusive. Values outside those ranges cause + the PCP server to return the MALFORMED_OPTION result code. + + If multiple occurrences of the FILTER option exist in the same MAP + request, they are processed in the order received (as per normal PCP + option processing), and they MAY overlap the filtering requested. If + there is an existing mapping (with or without a filter) and the + server receives a MAP request with 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 FILTER option, the error + MALFORMED_OPTION is returned. + + If any occurrences of the FILTER option in a request packet are not + successfully processed then an error is returned (e.g., + MALFORMED_OPTION if one of the options was malformed) and as with + other PCP errors, returning an error causes no state to be changed in + the PCP server or in the PCP-controlled device. + + 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 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, protocol, and port. + Other FILTER options in that PCP request, if any, add more allowed + remote peers. + + 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 + EXCESSIVE_REMOTE_PEERS, and the state on the PCP server is unchanged. + + All PCP servers MUST support at least one filter per MAP mapping. + +14. Rapid Recovery + + PCP includes a rapid recovery feature, which allows PCP clients to + repair failed mappings within seconds, rather than the minutes or + hours it might take if they relied solely on waiting for the next + routine renewal of the mapping. Mapping failures may occur when a + NAT gateway is rebooted and loses its mapping state, or when a NAT + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 63] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + gateway has its external IP address changed so that its current + mapping state becomes invalid. + + The PCP rapid recovery feature enables users to, for example, connect + to remote machines using ssh, and then reboot their NAT or firewall + device (or even replace it with completely new hardware) without + losing their established ssh connections. + + Use of PCP rapid recovery is a performance optimization to PCP's + routine self-healing. Without rapid recovery, PCP clients will still + recreate their correct state when they next renew their mappings, but + this routine self-healing process may take hours rather than seconds, + and will probably not happen fast enough to prevent active TCP + connections from timing out. + + There are two mechanisms to perform rapid recovery, described below. + Failing to implement and deploy a rapid recovery mechanism will + encourage application developers to feel the need to refresh their + PCP state more frequently than necessary, causing more network + traffic. Therefore, a PCP server that can lose state (e.g., due to + reboot) or might have a mapping change (e.g., due to IP renumbering) + MUST implement either the Announce Opcode or the Mapping Update + mechanism and SHOULD implement both mechanisms. + +14.1. ANNOUNCE Opcode + + This rapid recovery mechanism uses the ANNOUNCE Opcode. When the PCP + server loses its state (e.g., it lost its state when rebooted), it + resets its Epoch time to its initial starting value (usually zero) + and sends the ANNOUNCE response to the link-scoped multicast address + (specific address explained below) if a multicast network exists on + its local interface, or, if configured with the IP address(es) and + port(s) of PCP client(s), it sends unicast ANNOUNCE responses to + those address(es) and port(s). This means ANNOUNCE may not be + available on all networks (such as networks without a multicast link + between the PCP server and its PCP clients). Additionally, an + ANNOUNCE request can be sent (unicast) by a PCP client that elicits a + unicast ANNOUNCE response like any other Opcode. + + Upon receiving PCP response packets with an anomalous Epoch time, + clients deduce that the PCP server lost state and recreate their lost + mappings. + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 64] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +14.1.1. ANNOUNCE Operation + + The PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode requests and responses have no + Opcode-specific payload (that is, the length of the Opcode-specific + data is zero). The Requested Lifetime field of requests and Lifetime + field of responses are both set to 0 on transmission and ignored on + reception. + + If a PCP server receives an ANNOUNCE request, it first parses it and + generates a SUCCESS if parsing and processing of ANNOUNCE is + successful. An error is generated if the client's IP Address field + does not match the packet source address, or the request packet is + otherwise malformed, such as packet length less than 24 octets. Note + that, in the future, options MAY be sent with the PCP ANNOUNCE + Opcode; PCP clients and servers need to be prepared to receive + options with the ANNOUNCE Opcode. + + Discussion: Client-to-server request messages are sent, from any + client source port, to listening UDP port 5351 on the server; + server-to-client multicast notifications are sent from the + server's UDP port (5351) to listening UDP port 5350 on the client. + The reason the same listening UDP port is not used for both + purposes is that a single device may have multiple roles. For + example, a multi-function home gateway that provides NAT service + (PCP server) may also provide printer sharing (which wants a PCP + client), or a home computer (PCP client) may also provide + "Internet Sharing" (NAT) functionality (which needs to offer PCP + service). Such devices need to act as both a PCP server and a PCP + client at the same time, and the software that implements the PCP + server on the device may not be the same software component that + implements the PCP client. The software that implements the PCP + server needs to listen for unicast client requests, whereas the + software that implements the PCP client needs to listen for + multicast restart announcements. In many networking APIs it is + difficult or impossible to have two independent clients listening + for both unicasts and multicasts on the same port at the same + time. For this reason, two ports are used. + +14.1.2. Generating and Processing a Solicited ANNOUNCE Message + + The PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode MAY be sent (unicast) by a PCP client. The + Requested Lifetime value MUST be set to zero. + + When the PCP server receives the ANNOUNCE Opcode and successfully + parses and processes it, it generates SUCCESS response with an + assigned lifetime of zero. + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 65] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + This functionality allows a PCP client to determine a server's Epoch, + or to determine if a PCP server is running, without changing the + server's state. + +14.1.3. Generating and Processing an Unsolicited ANNOUNCE Message + + When sending unsolicited responses, the ANNOUNCE Opcode MUST have + result code equal to zero (SUCCESS), and the packet MUST be sent from + the unicast IP address and UDP port number on which PCP requests are + received (so that the PCP response processing described in + Section 8.3 will accept the message). This message is most typically + multicast, but can also be unicast. Multicast PCP restart + announcements are sent to 224.0.0.1:5350 and/or [ff02::1]:5350, as + described below. Sending PCP restart announcements via unicast + requires that the PCP server know the IP address(es) and port(s) of + its listening clients, which means that sending PCP restart + announcements via unicast is only applicable to PCP servers that + retain knowledge of the IP address(es) and port(s) of their clients + even after they otherwise lose the rest of their state. + + When a PCP server device that implements this functionality reboots, + restarts its NAT engine, or otherwise enters a state where it may + have lost some or all of its previous mapping state (or enters a + state where it doesn't even know whether it may have had prior state + that it lost), it MUST inform PCP clients of this fact by unicasting + or multicasting a gratuitous PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode response packet, as + shown below, via paths over which it accepts PCP requests. If + sending a multicast ANNOUNCE message, a PCP server device that + accepts PCP requests over IPv4 sends the Restart Announcement to the + IPv4 multicast address 224.0.0.1:5350 (224.0.0.1 is the All Hosts + multicast group address), and a PCP server device that accepts PCP + requests over IPv6 sends the Restart Announcement to the IPv6 + multicast address [ff02::1]:5350 (ff02::1 is for all nodes on the + local segment). A PCP server device that accepts PCP requests over + both IPv4 and IPv6 sends a pair of Restart Announcements, one to each + multicast address. If sending a unicast ANNOUNCE messages, it sends + ANNOUNCE response message to the IP address(es) and port(s) of its + PCP clients. To accommodate packet loss, the PCP server device MAY + transmit such packets (or packet pairs) up to ten times (with an + appropriate Epoch Time value in each to reflect the passage of time + between transmissions) provided that the interval between the first + two notifications is at least 250 ms, and the interval between + subsequent notification at least doubles. + + A PCP client that sends PCP requests to a PCP server via a multicast- + capable path, and implements the Restart Announcement feature, and + wishes to receive these announcements, MUST listen to receive these + PCP Restart Announcements (gratuitous PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode response + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 66] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + packets) on the appropriate multicast-capable interfaces on which it + sends PCP requests, and MAY also listen for unicast announcements + from the server too, (using the UDP port it already uses to issue + unicast PCP requests to, and receive unicast PCP responses from, that + server). A PCP client device that sends PCP requests using IPv4 + listens for packets sent to the IPv4 multicast address + 224.0.0.1:5350. A PCP client device that sends PCP requests using + IPv6 listens for packets sent to the IPv6 multicast address + [ff02::1]:5350. A PCP client device that sends PCP requests using + both IPv4 and IPv6 listens for both types of Restart Announcement. + The SO_REUSEPORT socket option or equivalent should be used for the + multicast UDP port, if required by the host OS to permit multiple + independent listeners on the same multicast UDP port. + + Upon receiving a unicasted or multicasted PCP ANNOUNCE Opcode + response packet, a PCP client MUST (as it does with all received PCP + response packets) inspect the announcement's source IP address, and + if the Epoch Time value is outside the expected range for that + server, it MUST wait a random amount of time between 0 and 5 seconds + (to prevent synchronization of all PCP clients), then for all PCP + mappings it made at that server address the client issues new PCP + requests to recreate any lost mapping state. The use of the + Suggested External IP Address and Suggested External Port fields in + the client's renewal requests allows the client to remind the + restarted PCP server device of what mappings the client had + previously been given, so that in many cases the prior state can be + recreated. For PCP server devices that reboot relatively quickly it + is usually possible to reconstruct lost mapping state fast enough + that existing TCP connections and UDP communications do not time out, + and continue without failure. As for all PCP response messages, if + the Epoch Time value is within the expected range for that server, + the PCP client does not recreate its mappings. As for all PCP + response messages, after receiving and validating the ANNOUNCE + message, the client updates its own Epoch time for that server, as + described in Section 8.5. + +14.2. PCP Mapping Update + + This rapid recovery mechanism is used when the PCP server remembers + its state and determines its existing mappings are invalid (e.g., IP + renumbering changes the external IP address of a PCP-controlled NAT). + + It is anticipated that servers that are routinely reconfigured by an + administrator or have their WAN address changed frequently will + implement this feature (e.g., residential CPE routers). It is + anticipated that servers that are not routinely reconfigured will not + implement this feature (e.g., service provider-operated CGN). + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 67] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If a PCP server device has not forgotten its mapping state, but for + some other reason has determined that some or all of its mappings + have become unusable (e.g., when a home gateway is assigned a + different external IPv4 address by the upstream DHCP server), then + the PCP server device automatically repairs its mappings and notifies + its clients by following the procedure described below. + + For PCP-managed mappings, for each one the PCP server device should + update the external IP address and external port to appropriate + available values, and then send unicast PCP MAP or PEER responses (as + appropriate for the mapping) to inform the PCP client of the new + external IP address and external port. Such unsolicited responses + are identical to the MAP or PEER responses normally returned in + response to client MAP or PEER requests, containing newly updated + External IP Address and External Port values, and are sent to the + same client IP address and port that the PCP server used to send the + prior response for that mapping. If the earlier associated request + contained the THIRD_PARTY option, the THIRD_PARTY option MUST also + appear in the Mapping Update as it is necessary for the PCP client to + disambiguate the response. If the earlier associated request + contained the PREFER_FAILURE option, and the same external IP + address, protocol, and port cannot be provided, the error + CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL SHOULD be sent. If the earlier associated + request contained the FILTER option, the filters are moved to the new + mapping and the FILTER option is sent in the Mapping Update response. + Non-mandatory options SHOULD NOT be sent in the Mapping Update + response. + + Discussion: It could have been possible to design this so that the + PCP server (1) sent an ANNOUNCE Opcode to the PCP client, the PCP + client reacted by (2) sending a new MAP request and (3) receiving + a MAP response. Instead, the server can create a shortcut for + that design by simply sending the message it would have sent in + (3). + + To accommodate packet loss, the PCP server device SHOULD transmit + such packets three times, with an appropriate Epoch Time value in + each to reflect the passage of time between transmissions. The + interval between the first two notifications MUST be at least 250 ms, + and the third packet after a 500-ms interval. Once the PCP server + has received a refreshed state for that mapping, the PCP server + SHOULD cease those retransmissions for that mapping, as it serves no + further purpose to continue sending messages regarding that mapping. + + Upon receipt of such an updated MAP or PEER response, a PCP client + uses the information in the response to adjust rendezvous servers or + reconnect to servers, respectively. For MAP, this would mean + updating the DNS entries or other address and port information + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 68] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + recorded with some kind of application-specific rendezvous server. + For PEER responses giving a CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL error, this would + typically mean establishing new connections to servers. Anytime the + external address or port changes, existing TCP and UDP connections + will be lost; PCP can't avoid that, but does provide immediate + notification of the event to lessen the impact. + +15. 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 minimum value SHOULD be 120 seconds. The maximum + value SHOULD be the remaining lifetime of the IP address assigned to + the PCP client if that information is available (e.g., from the DHCP + server), or half the lifetime of IP address assignments on that + network if the remaining lifetime is not available, or 24 hours. + Excessively long lifetimes can cause consumption of ports even if the + internal host is no longer interested in receiving the traffic or is + no longer connected to the network. These recommendations are not + strict, and deployments should evaluate the trade-offs to determine + their own minimum and maximum Lifetime values. + + Once a PCP server has responded positively to a MAP request for a + certain lifetime, the port mapping 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). Mappings created by PCP MAP requests are not + special or different from mappings created in other ways. In + particular, it is implementation-dependent if outgoing traffic + extends the lifetime of such mappings beyond the PCP-assigned + lifetime. PCP clients MUST NOT depend on this behavior to keep + mappings active, and MUST explicitly renew their mappings as required + by the Lifetime field in PCP response messages. + + Upon receipt of a PCP response with an absurdly long assigned + lifetime, the PCP client SHOULD behave as if it received a more sane + value (e.g., 24 hours), and renew the mapping accordingly, to ensure + that if the static mapping is removed, the client will continue to + maintain the mapping it desires. + + An application that forgets its PCP-assigned mappings (e.g., the + application or OS crashes) will request new PCP mappings. This may + consume port mappings, if the application binds to a different + internal port every time it runs. The application will also likely + initiate new outbound TCP connections, which create implicit dynamic + outbound mappings without using PCP, which will also consume port + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 69] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + mappings. If there is a port mapping quota for the internal host, + frequent restarts such as this may exhaust the quota. + + To help clean PCP state, when the PCP-controlled device is collocated + with the address assignment (DHCP) server, such as in a typical + residential CPE, it is RECOMMENDED that when an IP address becomes + invalid (e.g., the DHCP lease expires, or the DHCP client sends an + explicit DHCP RELEASE) the PCP-controlled device SHOULD also discard + any dynamic mapping state relating to that expired IP address. + + When using NAT, the same external port may be assigned for use by + different internal hosts at different times. For example, if an + internal host using an external port ceases sending traffic using + that port, then its mapping may expire, and then later the same + external port may be assigned to a new internal host. The new + internal host could then receive incoming traffic that was intended + for the previous internal host. This generally happens + inadvertently, and this reassignment of the external port only + happens after the current holder of the external port has ceased + using it for some period of time. It would be unacceptable if an + attacker could use PCP to intentionally speed up this reassignment of + the external port in order to deliberately steal traffic intended for + the current holder, by (i) spoofing PCP requests using the current + holder's source IP address and mapping nonce to fraudulently delete + the mapping or shorten its lifetime, and then (ii) subsequently + claiming the external port for itself. + + Therefore, in the simple security model, to protect against this + attack, PCP MUST NOT allow a PCP request (even a PCP request that + appears to come from the current holder of the mapping) to cause a + mapping to expire sooner than it would naturally have expired + otherwise by virtue of outbound traffic keeping the mapping active. + A PCP server MUST set the lifetime of a mapping to no less than the + remaining time before the mapping would expire if no further outbound + traffic is seen for that mapping. This means a MAP or PEER request + with lifetime of 0 will only set the assigned lifetime to 0 (i.e., + delete the mapping) if the internal host had not sent a packet using + that mapping for the idle-timeout time, otherwise the assigned + lifetime will be the remaining idle-timeout time. + + Finally, to reduce unwanted traffic and data corruption for both TCP + and UDP, the assigned external port created by the MAP Opcode or PEER + Opcode SHOULD NOT be reused for an interval equal to the reuse time + limit enforced by the NAT for its implicit dynamic mappings + (typically, the maximum TCP segment lifetime of 2 minutes [RFC0793]). + Furthermore, to reduce port stealing attacks, the assigned external + port also SHOULD NOT be reused for an interval equal to the time the + PCP- controlled device would normally maintain an idle (no traffic) + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 70] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + implicit dynamic mapping (e.g., 2 minutes for UDP [RFC4787] and 124 + minutes for TCP [RFC5382]). However, within these time windows, the + PCP server SHOULD allow an external port to be reclaimed by the same + client, where "same client" means "same internal IP address, internal + port, and mapping nonce". + +15.1. Lifetime Processing for the MAP Opcode + + If the requested lifetime is zero then: + + o If both the protocol and internal port are non-zero, it indicates + a request to delete the indicated mapping immediately. + + o If the protocol is non-zero and the internal port is zero, it + indicates a request to delete a previous 'wildcard' (all-ports) + mapping for that protocol. The nonce MUST match the nonce used to + create the 'wildcard' mapping. + + o If both the protocol and internal port are zero, it indicates a + request to delete a previous 'DMZ host' (all incoming traffic for + all protocols) mapping. The nonce MUST match the nonce used to + create the 'DMZ host' mapping. + + o If the protocol is zero and the internal port is non-zero, then + the request is invalid and the PCP server MUST return a + MALFORMED_REQUEST error to the client. + + In requests where the requested Lifetime is 0, the Suggested External + Address and Suggested External Port fields MUST be set to zero on + transmission and MUST be ignored on reception, and these fields MUST + be copied into the assigned external IP address and assigned external + port of the response. + + PCP MAP requests can only delete or shorten lifetimes of MAP-created + mappings. If the PCP client attempts to delete a static mapping + (i.e., a mapping created outside of PCP itself), or an outbound + (implicit or PEER-created) mapping, the PCP server MUST return + NOT_AUTHORIZED. If the PCP client attempts to delete a mapping that + does not exist, the SUCCESS result code is returned (this is + necessary for PCP to return the same response for retransmissions or + duplications of the same request). If the deletion request was + properly formatted and successfully processed, a SUCCESS response is + generated with the protocol and internal port number copied from the + request, and the response lifetime set to zero. An inbound mapping + (i.e., static mapping or MAP-created dynamic mapping) MUST NOT have + its lifetime reduced by transport protocol messages (e.g., TCP RST, + TCP FIN). Note the THIRD_PARTY option (Section 13.1), if authorized, + can also delete PCP-created MAP mappings. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 71] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +16. Implementation Considerations + + Section 16 provides non-normative guidance that may be useful to + implementers. + +16.1. Implementing MAP with EDM Port-Mapping NAT + + For implicit dynamic outbound mappings, some existing NAT devices + have endpoint-independent mapping (EIM) behavior while other NAT + devices have endpoint-dependent mapping (EDM) behavior. NATs that + have EIM behavior do not suffer from the problem described in this + section. The IETF strongly encourages EIM behavior + [RFC4787][RFC5382]. + + In EDM NAT devices, the same external port may be used by an outbound + dynamic mapping and an inbound dynamic mapping (from the same + internal host or from a different internal host). This complicates + the interaction with the MAP Opcode. With such NAT devices, there + are two ways envisioned to implement the MAP Opcode: + + 1. Have outbound mappings use a different set of external ports than + inbound mappings (e.g., those created with MAP), thus reducing + the interaction problem between them; or + + 2. On arrival of a packet (inbound from the Internet or outbound + from an internal host), first attempt to use a dynamic outbound + mapping to process that packet. If none match, attempt to use an + inbound mapping to process that packet. This effectively + 'prioritizes' outbound mappings above inbound mappings. + +16.2. Lifetime of Explicit and Implicit Dynamic Mappings + + No matter if a NAT is EIM or EDM, it is possible that one (or more) + outbound mappings, using the same internal port on the internal host, + might be created before or after a MAP request. When this occurs, it + is important that the NAT honor the lifetime returned in the MAP + response. Specifically, if an inbound mapping was created with the + MAP Opcode, the implementation needs to ensure that termination of an + outbound mapping (e.g., via a TCP FIN handshake) does not prematurely + destroy the MAP-created inbound mapping. + +16.3. PCP Failure Recovery + + If an event occurs that causes the PCP server to lose dynamic mapping + state (such as a crash or power outage), the mappings created by PCP + are lost. Occasional loss of state may be unavoidable in a + residential NAT device that does not write transient information to + non-volatile memory. Loss of state is expected to be rare in a + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 72] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + service provider environment (due to redundant power, disk drives for + storage, etc.). Of course, due to outright failure of service + provider equipment (e.g., software malfunction), state may still be + lost. + + The Epoch time allows a client to deduce when a PCP server may have + lost its state. When the Epoch Time value is observed to be outside + the expected range, the PCP client can attempt to recreate the + mappings following the procedures described in this section. + + Further analysis of PCP failure scenarios is planned for a future + document [PCP-FAIL]. + +16.3.1. Recreating Mappings + + 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; however, from the point of view of a + newly rebooted PCP server, it appears as a new mapping request. In + the normal process of routinely renewing its mappings before they + expire, a PCP client will automatically recreate all its lost + mappings. + + When the PCP server loses state and begins processing new PCP + messages, its Epoch time is reset and begins counting again. As the + result of receiving a packet where the Epoch Time field is outside + the expected range (Section 8.5), indicating that a reboot or similar + loss of state has occurred, the client can renew its port mappings + sooner, without waiting for the normal routine renewal time. + +16.3.2. Maintaining Mappings + + A PCP client refreshes a mapping by sending a new PCP request + containing information learned from the earlier PCP response. The + PCP server will respond indicating the new lifetime. It is possible, + due to reconfiguration or failure of the PCP server, that the + external IP address and/or external port, or the PCP server itself, + has changed (due to a new route to a different PCP server). Such + events are rare, but not an error. The PCP server will simply return + a new external address and/or external port to the client, and the + client should record this new external address and port with its + rendezvous service. To detect such events more quickly, a server + that requires extremely high availability may find it beneficial to + use shorter lifetimes in its PCP mappings requests, so that it + communicates with the PCP server more often. This is an engineering + trade-off based on (i) the acceptable downtime for the service in + question, (ii) the expected likelihood of NAT or firewall state loss, + and (iii) the amount of PCP maintenance traffic that is acceptable. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 73] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + If the PCP client has several mappings, the Epoch Time value only + needs to be retrieved for one of them to determine whether or not it + appears the PCP server may have suffered a catastrophic loss of + state. If the client wishes to check the PCP server's Epoch time, it + sends a PCP request for any one of the client's mappings. This will + return the current Epoch Time 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). + + If a PCP client changes its internal IP address (e.g., because the + internal host has moved to a new network), and the PCP client wishes + to still receive incoming traffic, it needs create new mappings on + that new network. New mappings will typically also require an update + to the application-specific rendezvous server if the external address + or port is different from the previous values (see Sections 10.1 and + 11.5). + +16.3.3. SCTP + + Although SCTP has port numbers like TCP and UDP, SCTP works + differently when behind an address-sharing NAT, in that SCTP port + numbers are not changed [SCTPNAT]. Outbound dynamic SCTP mappings + use the verification tag of the association instead of the local and + remote peer port numbers. As with TCP, explicit outbound mappings + can be made to reduce keepalive intervals, and explicit inbound + mappings can be made by passive listeners expecting to receive new + associations at the external port. + + Because an SCTP-aware NAT does not (currently) rewrite SCTP port + numbers, it will not be able to assign an external port that is + different from the client's internal port. A PCP client making a MAP + request for SCTP should be aware of this restriction. The PCP client + SHOULD make its SCTP MAP request just as it would for a TCP MAP + request: in its initial PCP MAP request it SHOULD specify zero for + the external address and port, and then in subsequent renewals it + SHOULD echo the assigned external address and port. However, since a + current SCTP-aware NAT can only assign an external port that is the + same as the internal port, it may not be able to do that if the + external port is already assigned to a different PCP client. This is + likely if there is more than one instance of a given SCTP service on + the local network, since both instances are likely to listen on the + same well-known SCTP port for that service on their respective hosts, + but they can't both have the same external port on the NAT gateway's + external address. A particular external port may not be assignable + for other reasons, such as when it is already in use by the NAT + device itself, or otherwise prohibited by policy, as described in + Section 11.3, "Processing a MAP Request". In the event that the + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 74] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + external port matching the internal port cannot be assigned (and the + SCTP-aware NAT does not perform SCTP port rewriting), the SCTP-aware + NAT MUST return a CANNOT_PROVIDE_EXTERNAL error to the requesting PCP + client. Note that this restriction places an extra burden on the + SCTP server whose MAP request failed, because it then has to tear + down its exiting listening socket and try again with a different + internal port, repeatedly until it is successful in finding an + external port it can use. + + The SCTP complications described above occur because of address + sharing. The SCTP complications are avoided when address sharing is + avoided (e.g., 1:1 NAT, firewall). + +16.4. Source Address Replicated in PCP Header + + All PCP requests include the PCP client's IP address replicated in + the PCP header. This is used to detect unexpected address rewriting + (NAT) on the path between the PCP client and its PCP server. On + operating systems that support the sockets API, the following steps + are RECOMMENDED for a PCP client to insert the correct source address + in the PCP header: + + 1. Create a UDP socket. + 2. Call "connect" on this UDP socket using the address and port of + the desired PCP server. + 3. Call the getsockname() function to retrieve a sockaddr containing + the source address the kernel will use for UDP packets sent + through this socket. + 4. If the IP address is an IPv4 address, encode the address into an + IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. Place the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address or + the native IPv6 address into the PCP Client's IP Address field in + the PCP header. + 5. Send PCP requests using this connected UDP socket. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 75] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +16.5. State Diagram + + Each mapping entry of the PCP-controlled device would go through the + state machine shown below. This state diagram is non-normative. + + CLOSE_MSG or + (NO_TRAFFIC and EXPIRY) +---------+ NO_TRAFFIC and EXPIRY + +-------------->| |<------------+ + | |NO_ENTRY | | + | +-----------| |---------+ | + | | +---------+ | | + | | ^ | | | + | | NO_TRAFFIC | | | | + | | or | | | | + | | CLOSE_MSGS | | | | + | | | | | | + | |PEER request | | MAP request| | + | V | | V | + +---------+ | | +---------+ + +-->| "P", | | | M-R | "M", |<--+ + P-R | | PEER |-----------|--|-------->| MAP | | M-R or + +---| mapping| | | | mapping|---+ P-R or + +---------+ | | +---------+ CLOSE_MSGS + | ^ | | ^ | + | |PEER request | | MAP request| | + | | | | | | + | | | | | | + | | | | | | + | | | | outbound | | + | | | | TRAFFIC | | + | | | V | | + | | +---------+ | | + | +-----------| "I", |---------+ | + | | implicit| | + +-------------->| mapping |<------------+ + TRAFFIC and EXPIRY +---------+ TRAFFIC and EXPIRY + + Figure 16: PCP State Diagram + + The meanings of the states and events are: + + NO_ENTRY: Invalid state represents Entry does not exist. This is + the only possible start state. + + M-R: MAP request + + P-R: PEER request + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 76] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + M: Mapping entry when created by MAP request + + P: Mapping entry when created/managed by PEER request + + I: Implicit mapping created by an outgoing packet from the + client (e.g., TCP SYN), and also the state when a + PCP-created mapping's lifetime expires while there is still + active traffic. + + EXPIRY: PEER or MAP lifetime expired + + TRAFFIC: Traffic seen by PCP-controlled device using this entry + within the expiry time for that entry. This traffic may be + inbound or outbound. + + NO_TRAFFIC: Indicates that there is no TRAFFIC. + + CLOSE_MSG: Protocol messages from the client or server to close + the session (e.g., TCP FIN or TCP RST), as per the NAT or + firewall device's handling of such protocol messages. + + Notes on the diagram: + + 1. The 'and' clause indicates the events on either side of 'and' are + required for the state-transition. The 'or' clause indicates + either one of the events are enough for the state-transition. + + 2. Transition from state M to state I is implementation dependent. + +17. Deployment Considerations + +17.1. Ingress Filtering + + As with implicit dynamic mappings created by outgoing TCP SYN + packets, explicit dynamic mappings created via PCP use the source IP + address of the packet as the internal address for the mappings. + Therefore, ingress filtering [RFC2827] SHOULD be used on the path + between the internal host and the PCP server to prevent the injection + of spoofed packets onto that path. + +17.2. Mapping Quota + + On PCP-controlled devices that create state when a mapping is created + (e.g., NAT), the PCP server SHOULD maintain per-host and/or per- + subscriber quotas for mappings. It is implementation specific + whether the PCP server uses a separate quotas for implicit, explicit, + and static mappings, a combined quota for all of them, or some other + policy. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 77] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +18. Security Considerations + + The goal of the PCP protocol is to improve the ability of end nodes + to control their associated NAT state, and to improve the efficiency + and error handling of NAT mappings when compared to existing implicit + mapping mechanisms in NAT boxes and stateful firewalls. It is the + security goal of the PCP protocol to limit any new denial-of-service + opportunities, and to avoid introducing new attacks that can result + in unauthorized changes to mapping state. One of the most serious + consequences of unauthorized changes in mapping state is traffic + theft. All mappings that could be created by a specific host using + implicit mapping mechanisms are inherently considered to be + authorized. Confidentiality of mappings is not a requirement, even + in cases where the PCP messages may transit paths that would not be + traveled by the mapped traffic. + +18.1. Simple Threat Model + + PCP servers are secure against off-path attackers who cannot spoof a + packet that the PCP server will view as a packet received from the + internal network. PCP clients are secure against off-path attackers + who can spoof the PCP server's IP address. + + Defending against attackers who can modify or drop packets between + the internal network and the PCP server, or who can inject spoofed + packets that appear to come from the internal network is out of + scope. Such an attacker can redirect traffic to a host of their + choosing. + + A PCP server is secure under this threat model if the PCP server is + constrained so that it does not configure any explicit mapping that + it would not configure implicitly. In most cases, this means that + PCP servers running on NAT boxes or stateful firewalls that support + the PEER and MAP Opcodes can be secure under this threat model if + (1) all of their hosts are within a single administrative domain (or + if the internal hosts can be securely partitioned into separate + administrative domains, as in the DS-Lite B4 case), (2) explicit + mappings are created with the same lifetime as implicit mappings, and + (3) the THIRD_PARTY option is not supported. PCP servers can also + securely support the MAP Opcode under this threat model if the + security policy on the device running the PCP server would permit + endpoint-independent filtering of implicit mappings. + + PCP servers that comply with the Simple Threat Model and do not + implement a PCP security mechanism described in Section 18.2 MUST + enforce the constraints described in the paragraph above. + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 78] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +18.1.1. Attacks Considered + + o If you allow multiple administrative domains to send PCP requests + to a single PCP server that does not enforce a boundary between + the domains, it is possible for a node in one domain to perform a + denial-of-service attack on other domains or to capture traffic + that is intended for a node in another domain. + + o If explicit mappings have longer lifetimes than implicit mappings, + it makes it easier to perpetrate a denial-of-service attack than + it would be if the PCP server was not present. + + o If the PCP server supports deleting or reducing the lifetime of + existing mappings, this allows an attacking node to steal an + existing mapping and receive traffic that was intended for another + node. + + o If the THIRD_PARTY option is supported, this also allows an + attacker to open a window for an external node to attack an + internal node, allows an attacker to steal traffic that was + intended for another node, or may facilitate a denial-of-service + attack. One example of how the THIRD_PARTY option could grant an + attacker more capability than a spoofed implicit mapping is that + the PCP server (especially if it is running in a service + provider's network) may not be aware of internal filtering that + would prevent spoofing an equivalent implicit mapping, such as + filtering between a guest and corporate network. + + o If the MAP Opcode is supported by the PCP server in cases where + the security policy would not support endpoint-independent + filtering of implicit mappings, then the MAP Opcode changes the + security properties of the device running the PCP server by + allowing explicit mappings that violate the security policy. + +18.1.2. Deployment Examples Supporting the Simple Threat Model + + This section offers two examples of how the Simple Threat Model can + be supported in real-world deployment scenarios. + +18.1.2.1. Residential Gateway Deployment + + Parity with many currently deployed residential gateways can be + achieved using a PCP server that is constrained as described in + Section 18.1 above. + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 79] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +18.2. Advanced Threat Model + + In the Advanced Threat Model, the PCP protocol ensures that attackers + (on- or off-path) cannot create unauthorized mappings or make + unauthorized changes to existing mappings. The protocol must also + limit the opportunity for on- or off-path attackers to perpetrate + denial-of-service attacks. + + The Advanced Threat Model security model will be needed in the + following cases: + + o Security infrastructure equipment, such as corporate firewalls, + that does not create implicit mappings. + + o Equipment (such as CGNs or service provider firewalls) that serves + multiple administrative domains and does not have a mechanism to + securely partition traffic from those domains. + + o Any implementation that wants to be more permissive in authorizing + explicit mappings than it is in authorizing implicit mappings. + + o Implementations that wish to support any deployment scenario that + does not meet the constraints described in Section 18.1. + + To protect against attacks under this threat model, a PCP security + mechanism that provides an authenticated, integrity-protected + signaling channel would need to be specified. + + PCP servers that implement a PCP security mechanism MAY accept + unauthenticated requests. In their default configuration, PCP + servers implementing the PCP security mechanism MUST still enforce + the constraints described in Section 18.1 when processing + unauthenticated requests. + +18.3. Residual Threats + + This section describes some threats that are not addressed in either + of the above threat models and recommends appropriate mitigation + strategies. + +18.3.1. Denial of Service + + Because of the state created in a NAT or firewall, a per-host and/or + per-subscriber quota will likely exist for both implicit dynamic + mappings and explicit dynamic mappings. A host might make an + excessive number of implicit or explicit dynamic mappings, consuming + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 80] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + an inordinate number of ports, causing a denial of service to other + hosts. Thus, Section 17.2 recommends that hosts be limited to a + reasonable number of explicit dynamic mappings. + + An attacker, on the path between the PCP client and PCP server, can + drop PCP requests, drop PCP responses, or spoof a PCP error, all of + which will effectively deny service. Through such actions, the PCP + client might not be aware the PCP server might have actually + processed the PCP request. An attacker sending a NO_RESOURCES error + can cause the PCP client to not send messages to that server for a + while. There is no mitigation to this on-path attacker. + +18.3.2. Ingress Filtering + + It is important to prevent a host from fraudulently creating, + deleting, or refreshing a mapping (or filtering) for another host, + because this can expose the other host to unwanted traffic, prevent + it from receiving wanted traffic, or consume the other host's mapping + quota. Both implicit and explicit dynamic mappings are created based + on the source IP address in the packet, and hence depend on ingress + filtering to guard against spoof source IP addresses. + +18.3.3. Mapping Theft + + In the time between when a PCP server loses state and the PCP client + notices the lower-than-expected Epoch Time value, it is possible that + the PCP client's mapping will be acquired by another host (via an + explicit dynamic mapping or implicit dynamic mapping). This means + incoming traffic will be sent to a different host ("theft"). Rapid + recovery reduces this interval, but does not completely eliminate + this threat. The PCP client can reduce this interval by using a + relatively short lifetime; however, this increases the amount of PCP + chatter. This threat is reduced by using persistent storage of + explicit dynamic mappings in the PCP server (so it does not lose + explicit dynamic mapping state), or by ensuring that the previous + external IP address, protocol, and port cannot be used by another + host (e.g., by using a different IP address pool). + +18.3.4. Attacks against Server Discovery + + This document does not specify server discovery, beyond contacting + the default gateway. + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 81] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +19. IANA Considerations + + IANA has performed the following actions. + +19.1. Port Number + + PCP uses ports 5350 and 5351, previously assigned by IANA to NAT-PMP + [RFC6886]. IANA has reassigned those ports to PCP. + +19.2. Opcodes + + IANA has created a new protocol registry for PCP Opcodes, numbered + 0-127, initially populated with the values: + + Value Opcode + ----- ------------------------- + 0 ANNOUNCE + 1 MAP + 2 PEER + 3-31 Standards Action [RFC5226] + 32-63 Specification Required [RFC5226] + 96-126 Reserved for Private Use [RFC5226] + 127 Reserved, Standards Action [RFC5226] + + The value 127 is Reserved and may be assigned via Standards Action + [RFC5226]. The values in the range 3-31 can be assigned via + Standards Action [RFC5226], 32-63 via Specification Required + [RFC5226], and the range 96-126 is for Private Use [RFC5226]. + +19.3. Result Codes + + IANA has created a new registry for PCP result codes, numbered 0-255, + initially populated with the result codes from Section 7.4. The + value 255 is Reserved and may be assigned via Standards Action + [RFC5226]. + + The values in the range 14-127 can be assigned via Standards Action + [RFC5226], 128-191 via Specification Required [RFC5226], and the + range 191-254 is for Private Use [RFC5226]. + +19.4. Options + + IANA has created a new registry for PCP options, numbered 0-255, each + with an associated mnemonic. The values 0-127 are mandatory to + process, and 128-255 are optional to process. The initial registry + contains the options described in Section 13. The option values 0, + 127, and 255 are Reserved and may be assigned via Standards Action + [RFC5226]. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 82] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + Additional PCP option codes in the ranges 4-63 and 128-191 can be + created via Standards Action [RFC5226], the ranges 64-95 and 192-223 + are for Specification Required [RFC5226], and the ranges 96-126 and + 224-254 are for Private Use [RFC5226]. + + Documents describing an option should describe the processing for + both the PCP client and server, and the information below: + + Option Name: <mnemonic> + Number: <value> + Purpose: <textual description> + Valid for Opcodes: <list of Opcodes> + Length: <rules for length> + May appear in: <requests/responses/both> + Maximum occurrences: <count> + +20. Acknowledgments + + Thanks to Xiaohong Deng, Alain Durand, Christian Jacquenet, Jacni + Qin, Simon Perreault, James Yu, Tina TSOU (Ting ZOU), Felipe Miranda + Costa, James Woodyatt, Dave Thaler, Masataka Ohta, Vijay K. Gurbani, + Loa Andersson, Richard Barnes, Russ Housley, Adrian Farrel, Pete + Resnick, Pasi Sarolahti, Robert Sparks, Wesley Eddy, Dan Harkins, + Peter Saint-Andre, Stephen Farrell, Ralph Droms, Felipe Miranda + Costa, Amit Jain, and Wim Henderickx for their comments and review. + + Thanks to Simon Perreault for highlighting the interaction of dynamic + connections with PCP-created mappings and for many other review + comments. + + Thanks to Francis Dupont for his several thorough reviews of the + specification, which improved the protocol significantly. + + Thanks to T. S. Ranganathan for the state diagram. + + Thanks to Peter Lothberg for clock skew information, which guided the + choice of tolerance levels for deciding when an Epoch time should be + considered to be anomalous. + + Thanks to Margaret Wasserman and Sam Hartman for writing the Security + Considerations section. + + Thanks to authors of DHCPv6 for retransmission text. + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 83] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +21. References + +21.1. Normative References + + [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, + RFC 768, August 1980. + + [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. + + [RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, + "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, + RFC 4086, June 2005. + + [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 + Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. + + [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing + Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. + + [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", 2011, + <http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers>. + +21.2. Informative References + + [IGDv1] UPnP Gateway Committee, "WANIPConnection:1", + November 2001, <http://upnp.org/specs/gw/ + UPnP-gw-WANIPConnection-v1-Service.pdf>. + + [L2NAT] Miles, D. and M. Townsley, "Layer2-Aware NAT", Work + in Progress, March 2009. + + [PCP-FAIL] Boucadair, M., Dupont, F., and R. Penno, "Port + Control Protocol (PCP) Failure Scenarios", Work + in Progress, August 2012. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 84] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + [PNP-IGD-PCP] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Universal + Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device (IGD)- + Port Control Protocol (PCP) Interworking Function", + Work in Progress, December 2012. + + [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. + + [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, + "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS + UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997. + + [RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) + Dynamic Update", RFC 3007, November 2000. + + [RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP + Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", + RFC 3022, January 2001. + + [RFC3581] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Extension to + the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Symmetric + Response Routing", RFC 3581, August 2003. + + [RFC3587] Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 + Global Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, + August 2003. + + [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", + RFC 4303, December 2005. + + [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram + Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, + March 2006. + + [RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address + Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for + Unicast UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, January 2007. + + [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy + Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration + in IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. + + [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", + RFC 4960, September 2007. + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 85] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + + [RFC4961] Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol + (RTCP)", BCP 131, RFC 4961, July 2007. + + [RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and + P. Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", + BCP 142, RFC 5382, October 2008. + + [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security + Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) + for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", + RFC 6092, January 2011. + + [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation + Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. + + [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, + "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol + Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", + RFC 6146, April 2011. + + [RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network + Prefix Translation", RFC 6296, June 2011. + + [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, + "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following + IPv4 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011. + + [RFC6619] Arkko, J., Eggert, L., and M. Townsley, "Scalable + Operation of Address Translators with Per-Interface + Bindings", RFC 6619, June 2012. + + [RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service + Discovery", RFC 6763, February 2013. + + [RFC6886] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "NAT Port Mapping + Protocol (NAT-PMP)", RFC 6886, April 2013. + + [RFC6888] Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., + Nakagawa, A., and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements + for Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, + April 2013. + + [SCTPNAT] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and I. Ruengeler, "Stream + Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address + Translation", Work in Progress, February 2013. + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 86] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +Appendix A. NAT-PMP Transition + + The Port Control Protocol (PCP) is a successor to the NAT Port + Mapping Protocol, NAT-PMP [RFC6886], and shares similar semantics, + concepts, and packet formats. Because of this, NAT-PMP and PCP both + use the same port and use NAT-PMP and PCP's version negotiation + capabilities to determine which version to use. This section + describes how an orderly transition from NAT-PMP to PCP may be + achieved. + + A client supporting both NAT-PMP and PCP SHOULD send its request + using the PCP packet format. This will be received by a NAT-PMP + server or a PCP server. If received by a NAT-PMP server, the + response will be UNSUPP_VERSION, as indicated by the NAT-PMP + specification [RFC6886], which will cause the client to downgrade to + NAT-PMP and resend its request in NAT-PMP format. If received by a + PCP server, the response will be as described by this document and + processing continues as expected. + + A PCP server supporting both NAT-PMP and PCP can handle requests in + either format. The first octet of the packet indicates if it is + NAT-PMP (first octet zero) or PCP (first octet non-zero). + + A PCP-only gateway receiving a NAT-PMP request (identified by the + first octet being zero) will interpret the request as a version + mismatch. Normal PCP processing will emit a PCP response that is + compatible with NAT-PMP, without any special handling by the PCP + server. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 87] + +RFC 6887 Port Control Protocol (PCP) April 2013 + + +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.com + + + Reinaldo Penno + Cisco Systems, Inc. + 170 West Tasman Drive + San Jose, California 95134 + USA + + EMail: repenno@cisco.com + + + Paul Selkirk + Internet Systems Consortium + 950 Charter Street + Redwood City, California 94063 + USA + + EMail: pselkirk@isc.org + + + + + + +Wing, et al. Standards Track [Page 88] + |