1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair
Request for Comments: 7488 France Telecom
Updates: <a href="./rfc6887">6887</a> R. Penno
Category: Standards Track D. Wing
ISSN: 2070-1721 P. Patil
T. Reddy
Cisco
March 2015
<span class="h1">Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server Selection</span>
Abstract
This document specifies the behavior to be followed by a Port Control
Protocol (PCP) client to contact its PCP server(s) when one or
several PCP server IP addresses are configured.
This document updates <a href="./rfc6887">RFC 6887</a>.
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 <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7488">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7488</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
3. IP Address Selection: PCP Server with Multiple IP Addresses . 3
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. IP Address Selection: Multiple PCP Servers . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Example: Multiple PCP Servers on a Single Interface . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. IPv6 Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. IPv4 Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
A host may have multiple network interfaces (e.g., 3G, IEEE 802.11,
etc.), each configured with different PCP servers. Each PCP server
learned must be associated with the interface on which it was
learned. Generic multi-interface considerations are documented in
<a href="./rfc6887#section-8.4">Section 8.4 of [RFC6887]</a>. Multiple PCP server IP addresses may be
configured on a PCP client in some deployment contexts such as
multihoming (see <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>). A PCP server may also have multiple IP
addresses associated with it. It is out of the scope of this
document to enumerate all deployment scenarios that require multiple
PCP server IP addresses to be configured.
If a PCP client discovers multiple PCP server IP addresses, it needs
to determine which actions it needs to undertake (e.g., whether PCP
entries are to be installed in all or a subset of discovered IP
addresses, whether some PCP entries are to be removed, etc.). This
document makes the following assumptions:
o There is no requirement that multiple PCP servers configured on
the same interface have the same capabilities.
o PCP requests to different PCP servers are independent, the result
of a PCP request to one PCP server does not influence another.
o The configuration mechanism must distinguish IP addresses that
belong to the same PCP server.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
This document specifies the behavior to be followed by a PCP client
[<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>] to contact its PCP server(s) [<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>] when it is
configured with one or several PCP server IP addresses (e.g., using
DHCP [<a href="./rfc7291" title=""DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC7291</a>]). This document does not make any assumption on the
type of these IP addresses (i.e., unicast/anycast).
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology and Conventions</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Requirements Language</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Terminology</span>
o PCP client: denotes a PCP software instance responsible for
issuing PCP requests to a PCP server. Refer to [<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>].
o PCP server: denotes a software instance that receives and
processes PCP requests from a PCP client. A PCP server can be co-
located with or be separated from the function it controls (e.g.,
Network Address Translation (NAT) or firewall). Refer to
[<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. IP Address Selection: PCP Server with Multiple IP Addresses</span>
This section describes the behavior a PCP client follows to contact
its PCP server when the PCP client has multiple IP addresses for a
single PCP server.
1. A PCP client should construct a set of candidate source addresses
(see <a href="./rfc6724#section-4">Section 4 of [RFC6724]</a>) based on application input and PCP
[<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>] constraints. For example, when sending a PEER or a MAP
with a FILTER request for an existing TCP connection, the only
candidate source address is the source address used for the
existing TCP connection. But when sending a MAP request for a
service that will accept incoming connections, the candidate
source addresses may be all of the node's IP addresses or some
subset of IP addresses on which the service is configured to
listen.
2. The PCP client then sorts the PCP server IP addresses as per
<a href="./rfc6724#section-6">Section 6 of [RFC6724]</a> using the candidate source addresses
selected in the previous step as input to the destination address
selection algorithm.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
3. The PCP client initializes its Maximum Retransmission Count (MRC)
to 4.
4. The PCP client sends its PCP messages following the
retransmission procedure specified in <a href="./rfc6887#section-8.1.1">Section 8.1.1 of [RFC6887]</a>.
If no response is received after MRC attempts, the PCP client
retries the procedure with the next IP address in the sorted
list.
The PCP client may receive a response from an IP address after
exhausting MRC attempts for that particular IP address. The PCP
client SHOULD ignore such a response because receiving a delayed
response after exhausting four retransmissions sent with
exponentially increasing intervals is an indication that problems
are to be encountered in the corresponding forwarding path and/or
when processing subsequent requests by that PCP server instance.
If, when sending PCP requests, the PCP client receives a hard
ICMP error [<a href="./rfc1122" title=""Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers"">RFC1122</a>], it MUST immediately try the next IP address
from the list of PCP server IP addresses.
5. If the PCP client has exhausted all IP addresses configured for a
given PCP server, the procedure SHOULD be repeated every 15
minutes until the PCP request is successfully answered.
6. Once the PCP client has successfully received a response from a
PCP server's IP address, all subsequent PCP requests to that PCP
server are sent on the same IP address until that IP address
becomes unresponsive. In case the IP address becomes
unresponsive, the PCP client clears the cache of sorted
destination addresses and follows the steps described above to
contact the PCP server again.
For efficiency, the PCP client SHOULD use the same Mapping Nonce for
requests sent to all IP addresses belonging to the same PCP server.
As a reminder, nonce validation checks are performed when operating
in the Simple Threat Model (see <a href="./rfc6887#section-18.1">Section 18.1 of [RFC6887]</a>) to defend
against some off-path attacks.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. IP Address Selection: Multiple PCP Servers</span>
This section describes the behavior a PCP client follows to contact
multiple PCP servers, with each PCP server reachable on a list of IP
addresses. There is no requirement that these multiple PCP servers
have the same capabilities.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
Note that how PCP clients are configured to separate lists of IP
addresses of each PCP server is implementation specific and
deployment specific. For example, a PCP client can be configured
using DHCP with multiple lists of PCP server IP addresses; each
list is referring to a distinct PCP server [<a href="./rfc7291" title=""DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC7291</a>].
If several PCP servers are configured, each with multiple IP
addresses, the PCP client contacts all PCP servers using the
procedure described in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>.
As specified in Sections <a href="#section-11.2">11.2</a> and <a href="#section-12.2">12.2</a> of [<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>], the PCP client
must use a different Mapping Nonce for each PCP server with which it
communicates.
If the PCP client is configured, using some means, with the
capabilities of each PCP server, a PCP client may choose to contact
all PCP servers simultaneously or iterate through them with a delay.
This procedure may result in a PCP client instantiating multiple
mappings maintained by distinct PCP servers. The decision to use all
these mappings or delete some of them depends on the purpose of the
PCP request. For example, if the PCP servers are configuring
firewall (not NAT) functionality, then the client would, by default
(i.e., unless it knows that they all replicate state among them),
need to use all the PCP servers.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Example: Multiple PCP Servers on a Single Interface</span>
Figure 1 depicts an example that is used to illustrate the server
selection procedure specified in Sections <a href="#section-3">3</a> and <a href="#section-4">4</a>. In this example,
PCP servers (A and B) are co-located with edge routers (rtr1 and
rtr2) with each PCP server controlling its own device.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
ISP Network
| |
.........................................................
| | Subscriber Network
+----------+-----+ +-----+----------+
| PCP-Server-A | | PCP-Server-B |
| (rtr1) | | (rtr2) |
+-------+--------+ +--+-------------+
192.0.2.1 | | 198.51.100.1
2001:db8:1111::1 | | 2001:db8:2222::1
| |
| |
-------+-------+------+-----------
|
| 203.0.113.0
| 2001:db8:3333::1
+---+---+
| Host |
+-------+
Edge Routers (rtr1, rtr2)
Figure 1: Single Uplink, Multiple PCP Servers
The example describes behavior when a single IP address for one PCP
server is not responsive. The PCP client is configured with two PCP
servers for the same interface, PCP-Server-A and PCP-Server-B, each
of which have two IP addresses: an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address.
The PCP client wants an IPv4 mapping, so it orders the addresses as
follows:
o PCP-Server-A:
* 192.0.2.1
* 2001:db8:1111::1
o PCP-Server-B:
* 198.51.100.1
* 2001:db8:2222::1
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
Suppose that:
o The path to reach 192.0.2.1 is broken
o The path to reach 2001:db8:1111::1 is working
o The path to reach 198.51.100.1 is working
o The path to reach 2001:db8:2222::1 is working
It sends two PCP requests at the same time, the first to 192.0.2.1
(corresponding to PCP-Server-A) and the second to 198.51.100.1
(corresponding to PCP-Server-B). The path to 198.51.100.1 is
working, so a PCP response is received. Because the path to
192.0.2.1 is broken, no PCP response is received. The PCP client
retries four times to elicit a response from 192.0.2.1 and finally
gives up on that address and sends a PCP message to 2001::db8:1111:1.
That path is working, and a response is received. Thereafter, the
PCP client should continue using that responsive IP address for PCP-
Server-A (2001:db8:1111::1). In this particular case, it will have
to use the THIRD_PARTY option for IPv4 mappings.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span>
PCP-related security considerations are discussed in [<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>].
This document does not specify how PCP server addresses are
provisioned on the PCP client. It is the responsibility of PCP
server provisioning document(s) to elaborate on security
considerations to discover legitimate PCP servers.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6724">RFC6724</a>] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", <a href="./rfc6724">RFC 6724</a>, September 2012,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6887">RFC6887</a>] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", <a href="./rfc6887">RFC 6887</a>, April
2013, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887</a>>.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1122">RFC1122</a>] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, <a href="./rfc1122">RFC 1122</a>, October 1989,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4116">RFC4116</a>] Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., and V.
Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations", <a href="./rfc4116">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc4116">4116</a>, July 2005, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4116">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4116</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7291">RFC7291</a>] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "DHCP Options for
the Port Control Protocol (PCP)", <a href="./rfc7291">RFC 7291</a>, July 2014,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7291">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7291</a>>.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Multihoming</span>
The main problem of a PCP multihoming situation can be succinctly
described as "one PCP client, multiple PCP servers." As described in
<a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>, if a PCP client discovers multiple PCP servers, it should
send requests to all of them with assumptions described in <a href="#section-1">Section 1</a>.
The following sub-sections describe multihoming examples to
illustrate the PCP client behavior.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.1" href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. IPv6 Multihoming</span>
In this example of an IPv6 multihomed network, two or more routers
co-located with firewalls are present on a single link shared with
the host(s). Each router is, in turn, connected to a different
service provider network, and the host in this environment would be
offered multiple prefixes and advertised multiple DNS servers.
Consider a scenario in which firewalls within an IPv6 multihoming
environment also implement a PCP server. The PCP client learns the
available PCP servers using DHCP [<a href="./rfc7291" title=""DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC7291</a>] or any other provisioning
mechanism. In reference to Figure 2, a typical model is to embed
DHCP servers in rtr1 and rtr2. A host located behind rtr1 and rtr2
can contact these two DHCP servers and retrieve from each server the
IP address(es) of the corresponding PCP server.
The PCP client will send PCP requests in parallel to each of the PCP
servers.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
==================
| Internet |
==================
| |
| |
+----+-+ +-+----+
| ISP1 | | ISP2 |
+----+-+ +-+----+ ISP Network
| |
.........................................................
| |
| | Subscriber Network
+-------+---+ +----+------+
| rtr1 with | | rtr2 with |
| FW1 | | FW2 |
+-------+---+ +----+------+
| |
| |
-------+----------+------
|
+---+---+
| Host |
+-------+
Figure 2: IPv6 Multihoming
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.2" href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. IPv4 Multihoming</span>
In this example of an IPv4 multihomed network described in "NAT- or
<a href="./rfc2260">RFC2260</a>-based Multihoming" (<a href="./rfc4116#section-3.3">Section 3.3 of [RFC4116]</a>), the gateway
router is connected to different service provider networks. This
method uses Provider-Aggregatable (PA) addresses assigned by each
transit provider to which the site is connected. The site uses NAT
to translate the various provider addresses into a single set of
private-use addresses within the site. In such a case, two PCP
servers might have to be present to configure NAT to each of the
transit providers. The PCP client learns the available PCP servers
using DHCP [<a href="./rfc7291" title=""DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC7291</a>] or any other provisioning mechanism. In
reference to Figure 3, a typical model is to embed the DHCP server
and the PCP servers in rtr1. A host located behind rtr1 can contact
the DHCP server to obtain IP addresses of the PCP servers. The PCP
client will send PCP requests in parallel to each of the PCP servers.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
=====================
| Internet |
=====================
| |
| |
+----+--------+ +-+------------+
| ISP1 | | ISP2 |
| | | |
+----+--------+ +-+------------+ ISP Network
| |
| |
..............................................................
| |
| Port1 | Port2 Subscriber Network
| |
+----+--------------+----+
|rtr1: NAT & PCP servers |
| GW Router |
+----+-------------------+
|
|
|
-----+--------------
|
+-+-----+
| Host | (private address space)
+-------+
Figure 3: IPv4 Multihoming
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Dave Thaler, Simon Perreault, Hassnaa Moustafa, Ted
Lemon, Chris Inacio, and Brian Haberman for their reviews and
comments.
<span class="grey">Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7488">RFC 7488</a> PCP Server Selection March 2015</span>
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Reinaldo Penno
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States
EMail: repenno@cisco.com
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
United States
EMail: dwing@cisco.com
Prashanth Patil
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Bangalore
India
EMail: praspati@cisco.com
Tirumaleswar Reddy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
EMail: tireddy@cisco.com
Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
</pre>
|
