![]() Triggered by the change of the external IP address and the port Port mappings in the address-sharing device must be supported.ĭetect changes and trigger DDNS updates: The DDNS client must be Must be able to maintain an alternative port number instead of theĪllow for incoming connections: Appropriate means to instantiate ![]() The main challenges are listed below:Īnnounce and discover an alternate service port: The DDNS service ĭNS in address-sharing contexts (e.g., DS-Lite and NAT64 Issues encountered in address sharing are documented in. Incoming communications initiated from the Internet can be routed to It will also require the ability to configure corresponding portįorwarding on Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) devices so that To report any change of this IP address and/or the external port(s). Port(s) on which the service is listening. As such, the DDNSĬlient will have to register the IP address and/or the external In address-sharing contexts, well-known port numbers (e.g., port 80) Server is not standardized, varying from one provider to another,Īlthough a few standard web-based methods of updating have emerged The communication between the DDNS client and the DDNS In the user's router or computer once changes are detected to itsĪssigned IP address, an update message is automatically sent to theĭDNS server. There are a number of providers that offer aĭDNS service, working in a client and server mode, which mostly use Servers (e.g., access to a webcam, HTTP server, FTP server, etc.) atĬustomers' premises. Problem Statementĭynamic DNS (DDNS) is a widely deployed service to facilitate hosting RFC 7393 PCP DDNS Updates November 2014 1. Create Explicit Mappings for Incoming Connections. Please review these documentsĬarefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respectġ. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Information about the current status of this document, any errata,Īnd how to provide feedback on it may be obtained atĬopyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the The RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet Its discretion and makes no statement about its value for The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification it is Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 This document focuses on the problems encountered when using dynamicĭNS in address-sharing contexts (e.g., Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) and Using the Port Control Protocol (PCP) to Update Dynamic DNS RFC 7393: Using the Port Control Protocol (PCP) to Update Dynamic DNS īeijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |