Subject: [pcp] [I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking] Issue #3: Lifetime Management/failure

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:53:31 +0100

Dear all,

Francis has raised in the past the following failure scenario:

   o  UPnP Control Point creates a mapping with a 5 day lifetime

   o  IWF creates the corresponding pinhole with one day lifetime,
      schedules a renewal each 24 hours and returns success

   o  3 days after the renewal fails

   Question:  What to do? e.g., state this is a rare failure case and we
      can do nothing?  Any other proposal?

Cheers,

Med

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:00:37 +0000

>       can do nothing?  Any other proposal?

That sounds fine to me.   The UPnP-IGDv1 spec says
> Note
> that static port mappings do not necessarily mean persistence of these mappings across device
> resets or reboots. It is up to a gateway vendor to implement persistence as appropriate for their
> IGD device.

So UPnP-IGDv1 clients are already not guaranteed that a port mapping will
last for the requested lifetime (which is typically infinite).

-Dae

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:50:18 +0000

> The UPnP-IGDv1 spec says

=> the v1 spec is fully broken: IMHO we should never base an argument
from it. My problem is the v2 spec can be used to argue UPnP v2
could provide a better service than PCP, and the length of the maximum
lifetime, IPv6 firewall or the security framework are only some
examples...

Regards

Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>