Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd
Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com> Wed, 14 March 2012 09:46 UTC
Return-Path: <fibrib@gmail.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 7912D21F8718 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 j3sRhlDkyB4m for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CBF21F871C for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so1801490yen.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pxWPz0TauCkON/+3IOT5Wo3EVvn8yfEQyvx4t6h/Jxk=; b=xaZ4AQGEeEeghQzqwhM43Ayqnzuwrz7JoIGzTzeCzudsC26EtLQbYDRiqaPfMk3wc5 iVtBULurPKXsfWSxOh3WxXhybjROA9Zvvpeg5oTuemdZTX8HswMhBhr2eWCgUjeUtw7Y bauSvQJMjsHs+8D9Ch96M3UVxqL7GbMld4ZznUBN0wQKDPkS4ZSUMlPq3NoFJWRDY8II 5wprYpKEtZ8hH9V/L5spYQtS/XllHndO2hNDcGzDpzGM1Czv0K0UzcCdzuXDW7LcdgGF xR3mEruWkIyRUw1XIuwBSmCq4AjmAD2w3xrbaY1P7oCep6tZvQCRt5a3iNVVCB7SgBTJ /Caw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.101.130 with SMTP id c2mr2218230qao.47.1331718366558; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.98.21 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AD2E97A4-98FF-4F00-BC28-44AB430870FB@laposte.net>
References: <B509CB1C-4A0A-408B-9B4A-C0F847169431@juniper.net> <2AB8570A-644F-4792-8C56-44AD80A79234@laposte.net> <D6428903-FBA0-419C-A37F-A00874F28118@laposte.net> <CAM+vMERsVz7cuC1C52gw12wySaEgw8=44JjS8AUygj0vJ899Cg@mail.gmail.com> <DDD20574-4ECD-4285-BB15-548628FB0425@laposte.net> <CAM+vMETahum9rB+fr=OHAmVobDZSzRRy9mUwkjryhqRvaJWe-Q@mail.gmail.com> <35065EB3-D4D6-451B-ACED-67BB94C77F18@laposte.net> <CAAuHL_D68nkd36ifLzEeVR67Q124VH-pMhM1pkEE_PcLbGxBrw@mail.gmail.com> <14D90642-0478-4AB9-91AA-A3E0310197F2@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqX9dj8MSeZdJTic5iOT=Jjg4oihWs30FWVAca08v_3=7g@mail.gmail.com> <D476AFD2-3B6B-48A0-971D-C65CC2CFA46B@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqU1wtP5prSaLG8hDSuv-EGWP5Diqoj6WEMHb_q8hNVDdQ@mail.gmail.com> <4BA560D3-5D48-4911-BDCB-D9CB490FBBA1@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqVzbtZ7JxunHv7m1zgWjRa2sh7zZS+91aURAy8-xTZW8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFUBMqXPAA7RjCzgvbuq0WqbKijXwuFebnmrL-zDx_XoZh=Xkg@mail.gmail.com> <FED38071-241D-480C-9A8A-CFA7A55A4F3B@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqUqoEnNouOJzc2Z3iziQsCvqXDNjA9NtN94kGQnsay0LA@mail.gmail.com> <1A6C1DA5-A352-4BF7-8553-453327902619@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqWv2V2PnZg5iTSuT6Jdbtredzj-4GPuS4VHqpDG+aP4dA@mail.gmail.com> <A4A7C9E3-DBA9-4AA5-A60B-E3D3A187BD7F@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqVT=E=GqBG_-q458GCpYKLk66vuvE-cx81=eTdgyUbj7A@mail.gmail.com> <D1EF9447-336A-48B4-91F4-D514654AC93D@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqWTRb_pjV_VFEDpNof7H+AnOvRM_acQXZ4XRPzAG-865A@mail.gmail.com> <7DED1A34-7237-4F05-B0A4-75C04A09B8E1@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqUVme5Vmm0QuJT4rcZeWo-CZyZoGBkq6RLjO=DRYLKYSg@mail.gmail.com> <AD2E97A4-98FF-4F00-BC28-44AB430870FB@laposte.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:46:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFUBMqXi02DcrTkJ3zjt4fv8EvVJPfAv=CTkM7gesi95jNQSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3074b7942dfb4d04bb30d8b6"
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd
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, 14 Mar 2012 09:46:08 -0000
2012/3/14 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> > > Le 2012-03-14 à 10:00, Maoke a écrit : > > > > 2012/3/14 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> > >> >> Le 2012-03-14 à 06:51, Maoke a écrit : >> >> >> >> 2012/3/13 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> >> >>> 2012-03-13 12:02, Maoke : >>> >>> 2012/3/13 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> >>> >>> ... >>> >>> The 4rd mechanism is for protocols that have ports at their usual >>>>> place (all existing protocols that have ports have them at the same place, >>>>> even if using another checksum algorithm like SCTP). >>>>> >>>> >>> may you have a check on the statement of "all existing protocols" >>> again? i noticed RFC908/RFC1151. sorry if that are not a transport protocol >>> over IP. >>> >>> >>> I missed this one. >>> None of the proposed stateless solutions supports it, but it remains >>> that you are right: it has ports at a different place. >>> >> >> alright. so 4rd-U doesn't not support "all existing transport protocol" >> either. >> >> >> Never said that without qualifying which protocols. >> >> but i suppose you may make an update in the 4rd-u-06 so that a new >> "if...else..." is added the port pick-up logic, and surely the CNP is not a >> problem for RDP because the old version (RFC908) has 32bit checksum but not >> involving pseudo-header while the newer version (RFC1151) changed to use >> TCP-checksum. no big deal but only needs a new patch to the draft. >> >> >> In the Note in 4.4 (7), the first sentence is: >> "This guarantees that, for all protocols that use the same checksum >> algorithm as TCP, Tunnel packets are valid IPv6 packets, and this >> independently from where the checksum field is placed for each protocol." >> It can become: >> "This guarantees that, for all protocols that use the same checksum >> algorithm as TCP and have ports at the same place, Tunnel packets are >> valid IPv6 packets, and this independently from where the checksum field is >> placed for each protocol." >> >> Similarly, in the comparison table, H6 is: >> "For shared IPv4 addresses, DCCP and UDP-Lite supported, as well as >> future protocols using the TCP checksum algorithm" >> It can become: >> "For shared IPv4 addresses, DCCP and UDP-Lite supported, as well any >> future protocol that might use the TCP checksum algorithm and ports at the >> same place" >> > > then it is fine. with these statement, 4rd-U can support > - TCP > - UDP > - DCCP > - any future or less well-known protocol as long as it uses TCP checksum > and port at the same place > > as a counterpart, we may suggest MAP-T to state it supports > - TCP > - UDP > - DCCP (with enforcing it rather than RFC6145's "optional") > - any future or less well-known protocol, no matter what layout it is nor > how the checksum is defined, with the similar logic of L4 checksum > recalculation > > > Maybe I get the point you are making: you implicitly consider that BR and > CE modifications can be synchronized. This is feasible if ISPs provide all > CE nodes, but not in the general case. > i don't consider their modifications are synced but i do consider that each device, either BR or CE, should has a specification on its supported functionalities. > > Changing DCCP support from optional to mandatory in RFC6145 isn't backward > compatible (an upgraded node isn't guaranteed to interwork with a non > upgraded node). > the CE/BR specified RFC6145-compliant might be a problem but MAP-T is still in development. if we state to enforce DCCP mandatorily rather than optional in MAP-T, a MAP-T-compliant CE/BR won't has the backward compatible problem. to this extend, MAP-T is at the same kick-off line of the 4rd-U. > > To be even more precise, H6 of the comparison table can be: > "For ISPs that don't provide all CE nodes, and for shared IPv4 addresses, > DCCP and UDP-Lite are supported, as well as future protocols using the TCP > checksum algorithm and ports at the same place" > i actually think the original text is fine. "For .... shared IPv4 addresses" is not needed for 4rd-U, to my understanding, nor needed to MAP-T. maoke > > Does this cover the point? > > RD > > > > > > ;-) > maoke > > >> >> but this is not my point. my point is: there must be something we don't >> know ("non omnia possumus omnes"). even we have gone through the RFCs, >> there might be some other proprietary L4 protocols, or experimental >> protocols. even they are minority, i don't think ignoring their existance >> in our solution fits the spirit of the Internet. it might be argued that >> NAT44 doesn't support such L4 protocols now, but an L4 protocol owner may >> makes his own NAT44, either attached to the CE or separated. if 4rd-U >> respects such an effort, it should state "currently blahblabla L4 protocols >> are supported". the similar statement applies to the RFC6145 or MAP as well. >> >> >> i somehow am hard to accept words like "far fetched theoretical problem". >> >> >> If I had thought it might be so, I would have avoided the word. >> >> >> the L4-recalculate is a generic, architectural solution, surely needing >> codes for every L4 protocol. but this generality in architecture makes >> RFC6145 or MAP-T equipment be easily enhanced to support anything new with >> the same logic. but for the 4rd-U BR, it looks to me we cannot have the >> unified logic for all (even limited to existing and well-known) L4 >> protocols. >> >> only my 2 cents. >> >> >> With amendments above, the point is AFAIK completely covered: everything >> is rigorously true, and worth noting. >> Thanks for the useful reference to the RDP of RFC1151. >> >> RD >> >> >> >> >> > >
- [Softwires] Call for agenda items Durand, Alain
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Mingwei Xu
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Sheng Jiang
- [Softwires] Call for agenda items Alain Durand
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Mingwei Xu
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Yiu L. Lee
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Templin, Fred L
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Mingwei Xu
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Tina Tsou
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Sheng Jiang
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Tomasz Mrugalski
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Eleven Fu(Yu)
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items GangChen
- [Softwires] Call for agenda items Alain Durand
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Xing Li
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items xiaohong.deng
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Tetsuya Murakami
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Shishio Tsuchiya
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Qiong
- [Softwires] Call for agenda items Alain Durand
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Ole Trøan
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Sheng Jiang
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Shishio Tsuchiya
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Qiong
- [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-st… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Naoki Matsuhira
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Peng Wu
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Washam Fan
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Naoki Matsuhira
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unifie… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Call for agenda items Naoki Matsuhira
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-u tunnels and stateful NAT64s Rémi Després