Re: [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd
Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com> Fri, 15 April 2011 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <tena@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5889CE081A for <int-area@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.201, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JjEslxbZb-GF for <int-area@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC415E0809 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LJP0080LS6ZE1@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for int-area@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TingZousc1 ([10.212.245.36]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LJP006WFS6WZ6@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for int-area@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:08:52 -0700
From: Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <00ef01cbfa30$5eb5ad50$1c2107f0$@com>
To: int-area@ietf.org
Message-id: <016401cbfbb9$b80b2210$28216630$@com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_u6PronNq/0WHTlloLmj6jQ)"
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: Acv513EEgB0AidJaRV+R6cpHxz5MQgAWIj5wAGJM1eA=
References: <00ef01cbfa30$5eb5ad50$1c2107f0$@com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:06:58 -0700
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:09:03 -0000
Hi all, Sorry for making noise. I'm wondering that perhaps http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-aplusp-09#section-5.3.2 has already solve the ICMP issues. We keep our promises with one another - no matter what! Best Regards, Tina TSOU http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html From: int-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tina Tsou Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 4:13 PM To: int-area@ietf.org Subject: [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd Hi all, I have some comments for 4rd. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-intarea-4rd-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sun-intarea-4rd-applicability-01 1. In section 4.3.4 of 4rd draft, Figure 4 In section 2.5.1 of RFC3513, it says: " For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format." The last 64bits of CE IPv6 address should comply with this requirement, if you do not have any specific reasons to set them to 0. 2. In section 4.5.1 and 4.5.2, (d) of 4rd draft In this case, the packet comes from the internet to the CE/end user, there is no address sharing in this direction, why should the Datagram ID be replaced by a locally generated one? 3. ICMP does not work in 4rd ICMP packet contains no port information, a user can send a ping packet to peer, but when the BR receives the response packet, the BR does not know how to construct the CE's IPv6 address based on just the IPv4 address, without the IPv4 port info. A possible solution is to put the port information into the identification field of an ICMP packet: a) When receiving a ICMP packet from the end user, CE should get a number from its IPv4 port range, and put it into the identification field of the ICMP packet. b) When receiving a response ICMP message from the internet side, BR should derive the CE's IPv6 address based on the IPv4 destination address and the identification(port) info. c) If BR does not replace the identification filed of a packet, then only a) and b) is sufficient; or BR just replace identification of packet when the packet is not ICMP packet; if the BR replace identification of all packets, then BR have to maintain a mapping table of internal identification VS external identification, and when receiving a response ICMP packet from the internet side, BR should replace the identification based on the mapping table before forwarding it to CE. 4. Unable to communicate to users sharing a same IP address Users sharing a same public IPv4 address would not be able to communicate directly, because they have the same IP address; the IP stack would not send out a packet to the network if it thinks the destination is itself, but return the packet to itself, just like you send a packet to 127.0.0.1. Maybe they can communicate to each other via native IPv6; 5. In section 5 of applicability draft "Shared address issues [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues] describes a method for the random selection of TCP Sequence Number, that reduces the ability of attacker to correctly guess the 5-ruple." Random selection of TCP Sequence Number is to prevent the attacker from guessing the next TCP SN, not the 5-tuple. We keep our promises with one another - no matter what! Best Regards, Tina TSOU http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
- [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd Tina Tsou
- Re: [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd Tetsuya Murakami
- Re: [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd c-sun
- Re: [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd Dan Wing
- Re: [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd Tina Tsou
- Re: [Int-area] Some comments for 4rd c-sun