[BEHAVE] Regarding 6to4-PMT
Victor Kuarsingh <vicmank@rogers.com> Tue, 29 March 2011 13:54 UTC
Return-Path: <vicmank@rogers.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C661B3A690F for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4FLHlf5qL97q for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp108.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp108.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.225.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 524C53A68FC for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20586 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2011 13:55:51 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=rogers.com; h=DKIM-Signature:Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Mime-version:Content-type; b=jcdoXYii5sMDu6EvULlCXjBv9Epb5gEKyGllhPZUoZp+Y2IVkIkvD9W0ChuDI+YwOXs4NU5lxWvDfSK9r0npVb8lyTLZVCoeX22YcGkVldZN7KWGateBFmFK/6WRAfeDtsIOdFqSXKeMkNCMrJa4JHSRc+r9Tyetzjyb4/jBGd0= ;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rogers.com; s=s1024; t=1301406951; bh=E4HBtGKKqusrl9LiOXKLYBk4yy1YetTLggNiVw2yWMo=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Mime-version:Content-type; b=A3Hnm5Y20KVXkrma9LRNPKwQGivonjNiKkoPp7Zql0vOwrxI/L7Pnm/9tjFHRyO/HWlqyqe0Ok0keA3vwu4nK/nE8V1QShXh3zTbfcWcF9k6V0BEJv6tFb1O9LBKzaVBdsRaUqu6wbKpgp+ExRh9fKyWmkGG0WnL1BQdVB3Zzb4=
Received: from [130.129.19.75] (vicmank@130.129.19.75 with login) by smtp108.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2011 06:55:51 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: f9g07a.swBDGzI9q2Xty6cZwEaZpJ.WouSaMcQ--
X-YMail-OSG: oay0Jx8VM1lmA207.kpkoJ7axsmBzzuxW3kVI2DpXWzuT41 LmL4L.PJKxaHGLvvcWRxYxVwxGXaF5Cmmt8r08fP7aq9xhbEFl0cRRSIENhh RB8nkeraCI241_XFyIlS5kf3O6yhO6NuvT9dbVFYYfuVkNBkXBB7nSSyoiZ5 jZDN5XZxjTkTIjsXePn5Mq8WGazTGo6SuIdfOt.kfc0LwcPJ76ahysXltn1p SXp0qlBXAwZFRtpJZr1bJrdUd8pWUv0KnHJoZ.RJ8qOAds.unSItkezu6Oz8 4uTspgRiaZ.PNX3ci_VeD.GoEEEmSCdzCkFMYyPkVbIK8z..Bne73N.kB9ai QmbvlFUA2FF5LZKM6
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:59:34 +0200
From: Victor Kuarsingh <vicmank@rogers.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <C9B7B266.CE6D%vicmank@rogers.com>
Thread-Topic: Regarding 6to4-PMT
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3384259179_4293033"
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: [BEHAVE] Regarding 6to4-PMT
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:54:24 -0000
Chairs, There is a 6to4-PMT Draft under discussion in the v6ops working group [draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel]. Originally, this draft was not intending to introduce any changes to NAT (in theory) but does differ with the current draft-mrw-nat66 I-D which covers NAT66. The main difference include: * The use of PMT is not included in the "NPTv6 Applicability Statement" in section 1.2 * It does not align with the "multi-homing" and "redundancy/load-sharing" sections since the 6to4 continues to use RFC3068 (WKP) to get to the 6to4/PMT relay * The PMT implementation does not include provisions for "Checksum Nutural Mappings" but uses RF3022 "checksum adjustment" as used in many NATs today. * PMT is targeted as "stateless" but does not prevent "statefull implementations" * PMT does not promote any given algorithm for the Prefix Translation (Flexible), but the most basic mapping is provided in that draft (Maps a 2002::/16 to a Provider:/32 and drops the Sub-ID bits keeping the Host generated (65-128) bits Due to this, do we need to discuss this draft and/or concept within the Behave WG? As a side note, 6to4-PMT is already in code and working/being tested in a couple labs/network. By the way, the concept as a whole will be debated once again in v6ops along with two other drafts associated with 6to4 (so I do not know the future status of the draft just yet) Regards, Victor K
- [BEHAVE] Regarding 6to4-PMT Victor Kuarsingh