Talk:Port Control Protocol

Lacking context
Someone more familiar with PCP should probably write about how PCP differs from IGDP and NAT-PMP and how PCP was considered necessary. The article as currently authored suggests PCP is a revolutionary technology which evolved in a vacuum; this is far from the truth. 206.186.37.200 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello there! That's a very good remark, went ahead and  the relation between PCP, NAT-PMP and IGDP.  Also, did a  of the article's language.  Please check it out. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Security section needs work
The security section is clear as mud. I have the CISSP credential and don't understand most of what is being said here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.205.58 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

broken reference - with fix!
the link to the 2nd reference (Dan Wing (December 2011). "Port Control Protocol". The Internet Protocol Journal. Cisco Systems. Retrieved January 31, 2014.) is broken.

after some digging, I found a link to PDF of it: https://ipj.dreamhosters.com/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/ipj14-4.pdf

I tried editing the reference directly but couldn't figure it out. apologies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflefuzzy (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge NATPMP article into the PCP
The PCP is in fact a second version of the NATPMP and in the miniupnpd source code they are processed the same but for the PCP just added some additional steps. The libnatpmp is also supports both protocols but it's name wasn't changed to a libpcp. Even more, the PCP is harder to find so many peoples just saying NATPMP/PCP or simply NATPMP. The original NATPMP article is short and can be easily be represented as a paragraph in the PCP article. How do you think about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokito (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)