RE: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence RequirementI-D

["Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Durand, Alain [mailto:Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:50 PM
> To: Dan Wing; Rémi Després; marcelo bagnulo braun
> Cc: v6ops
> Subject: Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence 
> RequirementI-D
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Because there is only one level of NAT in dual-stack lite, 
> couldn't this be
> simplified by asking the dual-stack lite home gateway to 
> forward the UPnP
> message to the dual-stack lite carrier-grade NAT?

Yes, UPnP IGD could be considered a candidate protocol to meet
the needs of an address-port-borrowing-protocol.

-d

>   - Alain.
> 
> 
> On 7/16/08 2:03 PM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> >> Following some privatly received comments of Dan Wing, the
> >> standby phase hasn't be long, and the idea to possibly give up
> >> APBP stands no longer !
> >> 
> >> I just posted draft-01,  with  I believe  substantial 
> simplifications
> >> and improved applicability.
> >> 
> >> Sorry for the one more change.
> > 
> > Allow me to elaborate a bit on our offline discussion over 
> the weekend.
> > 
> > I noticed all of the current proposals (SNAT, NAT64, NAT6, IVI,
> > dual-stack-lite, etc.) are quiet on a significant aspect of 
> a requirement that
> > is important:  keeping existing games and existing 
> applications working.  I am
> > thinking of game boxes like Microsoft's Xbox that need UPnP 
> IGD in order to
> > function properly over the Internet, and applications such 
> as Microsoft
> > Netmeeting (needs an H.323 ALG in the NAT), Quicktime and 
> RealAudio streaming
> > (RTSP), and so on.  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3027 does 
> a good job of
> > explaining the specifics.
> > 
> > A protocol which meets the requirements of APBP would allow 
> UPnP IGD, NAT-PMP,
> > and appropriate ALGs to be in the subscriber-side CPE box, 
> and allow using
> > APBP to the carrier-owned NAT64/NAT44 box to obtain a real, 
> publicly-routable
> > v4 transport address.  That publicly-routable v45 transport 
> address would then
> > be used by the subscriber-side CPE in exactly the same way 
> that today's
> > subscriber-side CPE uses its own WAN transport address for 
> the same functions.
> > For UPnP IGD, the availability of APBP means a host that 
> performs the UPnP
> > getPublicIPAddress() API call would get a publicly-routable 
> v4 transport
> > address.  Without APBP, a host performing that same 
> function call would not
> > get a v4 address at all.
> > 
> > 
> > Here is some beautiful ASCII art diagrams of the difference 
> between today's
> > UPnP IGD (and NAT-PMP) and what I am suggesting is useful 
> (and necessary) for
> > tomorrow's APBP in conjunction with UPnP IGD and NAT-PMP:
> > 
> > 
> > Today's UPnP IGD and NAT-PMP function at a high level:
> > 
> > +-----------------+
> > |incoming UPnP IGD|
> > |or NAT-PMP packet|
> > +----+------------+
> >      |
> >      V
> > +-------------+          +-----------------------+
> > |  need new   |-----YES->| create NAT binding    |
> > |NAT binding? |          |using NAT's WAN address|
> > +----+--------+          +---------+-------------+
> >      |                             |
> >      NO                            |
> >      |                             |
> >      V                             |
> > +----+---------------+             |
> > |respond to UPnP IGD |<------------+
> > |or NAT-PMP request  |
> > +----+---------------+
> > 
> > 
> > Change to UPnP IGD or NAT-PMP function inside of the subscriber NAT
> > (difference highlighted with "=" and capital letters):
> > 
> > 
> > +-----------------+
> > |incoming UPnP IGD|
> > |or NAT-PMP packet|
> > +----+------------+
> >      |
> >      V
> > +-------------+          +=========================+
> > |  need new   |-----YES->| SEND "APBP" MESSAGE     |
> > |NAT binding? |          | TOWARDS SP'S CARRIER NAT|
> > +----+--------+          +=========+===============+
> >      |                             |
> >      NO                            |
> >      |                             |
> >      V                             |
> > +----+---------------+             |
> > |respond to UPnP IGD |<------------+
> > |or NAT-PMP request  |
> > +----+---------------+
> > 
> > -d
> > 
> > 
> 
>