Re: [Softwires] MAP&4rd-U - DS routing replaced by v6-only routing in hub&spoke topology

Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <wdec@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED24F21F8573 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0VpEt13ARLGQ for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A847521F8566 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:53:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=wdec@cisco.com; l=1496; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328701989; x=1329911589; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=a1VNCsAGTkZD06R4c4z9skdRkDO72TtXzS4XmUiWXQk=; b=gBJJ31En+jgn9Lx9j014TC4khKXb1RBSaH1thc5yf2/diIYn7XDgM7Z3 QoiFE7KVLh32hbvZT7cB9emhVqsmdS581zCS0LupdmfQskKpASr1kPaxq /CIMGrr5u4sNFwjCABDDLql1mlqDydM6iDcE0Ml59S26RFiKJnSV2f34t M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABZhMk+Q/khN/2dsb2JhbABDr2qBB4FyAQEBAwESASkBPAUNAQiBHQEBBAENBSKHWppGAZ5xi0osBgELAQgFAwMJBwEHBwIHhCaDWQSIE40akl4
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,383,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="128837377"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2012 11:53:08 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q18Br7a5026959; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:53:08 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-112.cisco.com ([144.254.74.87]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:52:53 +0100
Received: from 10.55.92.10 ([10.55.92.10]) by XMB-AMS-112.cisco.com ([144.254.74.87]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:52:52 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:52:50 +0100
From: Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UultaQ==?= =?ISO-8859-1?B?IERlc3By6XM=?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, Tetsuya Murakami <tetsuya@ipinfusion.com>
Message-ID: <CB5820A2.1A76B%wdec@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: MAP&4rd-U - DS routing replaced by v6-only routing in hub&spoke topology
Thread-Index: AczmWC6Wno1QB0TnaEWAwsO+C1I7CQ==
In-Reply-To: <554901A7-F23C-4197-8783-85D51B502EA3@laposte.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2012 11:52:53.0123 (UTC) FILETIME=[30729D30:01CCE658]
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP&4rd-U - DS routing replaced by v6-only routing in hub&spoke topology
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:53:11 -0000

Hello Remi,


On 07/02/2012 11:13, "Rémi Després" <despres.remi@laposte.net> wrote:

> Hello Ole, Tetsuya-san, Wojciech,
> 
> In a use case described in the 4rd-U draft (sec 5.3), an ISP replaces its
> dual-stack routing by IPv6-only routing.
> For this, independently from the number of IPv4 prefixes it has to support, it
> uses only one mapping rule.
> (By replacing each IPv4 route by an equivalent IPv6 route, it ensures that all
> customers keep their IPv4 addresses.)
> 
> For this to work, the 4rd-U draft has a bit that, in the hub&spoke case,
> differs between CE-to-BR and BR-to-CE directions. Thus, packets sent to a CE
> take different routes depending on whether sent by a CE or a BR.

Would this be the "bit set in the V byte"?

With MAP-T, the BR prefix(es) and the CE prefix(es) can be different.
Matching on the source and destination prefix combination allows CE-CE
traffic in a MAP domain, if one cares to detect such traffic.
As you may recall classification of "MAP" and "non-MAP" traffic, is a topic
we discussed in Beijing and in the design team, and there appeared to be
little practical need for it from operators. Nothing in MAP precludes from
adding that, if the need would actually be more substantial.

Regards,
Woj

> 
> I don't see how the equivalent could work with the MAP documents you edited.
> Is it that such a use case is out of scope for MAP?
> Or did I miss something?
> 
> Cheers,
> RD
>