Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 06 September 2012 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4279021F854C for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5LGotqsc7g8n for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536FB21F8508 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 06:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5A6033245FE; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:20:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH21.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.28]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 404402380F2; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:20:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.12]) by PUEXCH21.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.28]) with mapi; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:20:11 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:20:09 +0200
Thread-Topic: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
Thread-Index: Ac2MLDXUe1rOQ71EQfyyBaxvbFw0hwAAxtQA
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08524@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E57B08381@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <504898BD.7000702@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.9.6.104516
Subject: Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:20:15 -0000

Hi Simon,

Before answering your questions, I would like to say some words about the context of this work: In fact we have ported a SIP UA implementation to be PCP-aware and tested it IPv6-only environment + NAT64 in using both Wifi and 3G connectivity. The challenge was 

(1) to place successful communications between IPvx/IPvy UAs without requiring any particular mechanism in the SIP Proxy Server and ALG in the NAT64
(2) use PCP to control the NAT64

IPv6-only UA needs to be provisioned with the PREFIX64 used by the PCP-controlled NAT64 for local synthesis of IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses. 

Retrieving the PREFIX64 used by the PCP-controlled NAT64 using PCP was a natural approach rather than mandating to support a dedicated DHCP option; mainly for the following reasons:

* DHCPv6 is not supported by some mobile UEs
* We need to correlate a PREFIX64 and a NAT64 device

Below some answers.

Cheers,
Med
 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la 
>part de Simon Perreault
>Envoyé : jeudi 6 septembre 2012 14:36
>À : pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [pcp] PREFIX64 PCP Option for NAT64: 
>draft-boucadair-pcp-nat64-prefix64-option
>
>Interesting... I have a question:
>
>Consider a PCP client that receives a MAP response containing 
>a PREFIX64 
>option. Does the option apply a) only to the mapping contained in the 
>MAP response, or b) to all future mappings as well?

Med: I'm tempted to say the prefix will be used for all mappings associated with the same PCP server. A record to associate a PCP server and a PREFIX64 should be maintained by the client. We need to check if there are scenarios where the same PCP Server controls NAT64s configured with distinct PREFIX64 servicing the same IPv6-only host.  

>
>If a), how is PREFIX64 of any use to the client?

Med: I'm not sure I get your question; but PREFIX64 will be used whenever needed to construct IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses. This is needed particularly for services which does not involve DNS64.

>
>If b), why include it in a MAP response? Why not DHCP or 
>something else? 

Med: You can include it in DHCP but for mobile terminal not supporting DHCPv6 this may not help.

>What happens if the client receives two MAP responses with conflicting 
>PREFIX64 options? Does it have to check that?

Med:  If we assume a PCP Server controls only one NAT64/PREFIX64, then it is safe the client to check whether only one PREFIX64 is learned for each PCP Server.

>
>Simon
>-- 
>DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
>NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
>_______________________________________________
>pcp mailing list
>pcp@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>