[multipathtcp] Multipath TCP with NAT64 Networks
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 24 July 2017 08:40 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B0112EC30 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 01:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kMztUztE8up3 for <multipathtcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 01:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 684A5129ACD for <multipathtcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 01:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.65]) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6B6CEA0431; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:40:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.43]) by opfednr01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0B2B41A06D8; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:40:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM5F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e172:f13e:8be6:71cc%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:40:07 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "quentin.deconinck@uclouvain.be" <quentin.deconinck@uclouvain.be>
CC: multipathtcp <multipathtcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Multipath TCP with NAT64 Networks
Thread-Index: AdMEWHPC9BK15jrHSiyLh2Aws25FVQ==
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:40:07 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A012377@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300A012377OPEXCLILMA3corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multipathtcp/oA3LEWWNfssZ_Q-597r1qb-frV0>
Subject: [multipathtcp] Multipath TCP with NAT64 Networks
X-BeenThere: multipathtcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-path extensions for TCP <multipathtcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/multipathtcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:multipathtcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp>, <mailto:multipathtcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 08:40:12 -0000
Hi Quentin,
As mentioned in the mic during the MPTCP session, the problem you described is a real one, but applies to all applications making use of referrals. Below a list of specifications that address the generic problem together with the solutions in that space:
* RFC7050 : Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis
* RFC7051 : Analysis of Solution Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix
* RFC7225 : Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the Port Control Protocol
* RFC6877 : 464XLAT
* RFC 6535 : BIH
* draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-experiments: To illustrate how local address synthesis can be implemented in the host for the particular case of SIP/SDP.
Some of these features are part the IPv6 mobile device profile requested by many operators:
* RFC7849 : An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices
See in particular, this recommendation:
C_REC#7: In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only
deployment context, the cellular host should support a
method to learn PREFIX64(s).
In the context of NAT64, IPv6-enabled applications
relying on address referrals will fail because an
IPv6-only client will not be able to make use of an IPv4
address received in a referral. This feature allows for
solving the referral problem (because an IPv6-enabled
application can construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses
[RFC6052<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6052>]) and, also, for distinguishing between
IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses and native IPv6 addresses.
In other words, this feature contributes to offload both
the CLAT module and NAT64 devices. Refer to Section 3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7051#section-3>
of [RFC7051]<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7051#section-3> for an inventory of the issues related to
the discovery of PREFIX64(s).
Cheers,
Med
- [multipathtcp] Multipath TCP with NAT64 Networks mohamed.boucadair