IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] WGLC review of draft-ietf-softwire-map

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 15 January 2014 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548321AE373 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:01:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 hhBPWEYTC9sJ for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:01:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279811AE364 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:01:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFANyT1lKQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABZgwu8DYEVFnSCJQEBAQMBeRALRlcGiA8IxBMXjidYB4MkgRMEkDmZfIMuO4Es
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.95,663,1384300800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="2994062"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2014 14:01:21 +0000
Received: from dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-220.cisco.com (dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-220.cisco.com [10.147.113.220]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0FE1Kj8004577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:01:21 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_461D5D2F-3140-4A59-9EA1-0E21D29CA5F5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <52D6931F.9040101@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:01:20 +0100
Message-Id: <C1AE894E-D085-4F3F-B77C-9975FABF5053@employees.org>
References: <52A88ACF.7000207@viagenie.ca> <F62C723F-6019-426E-99DA-4F7B4F983934@employees.org> <52CB26BF.4080209@viagenie.ca> <DCDDDE87-795B-41EE-9D81-C50DC3ECB2F4@employees.org> <52D68FA7.10107@viagenie.ca> <1A08CBF6-722F-41A6-B3CE-D885A7338C2C@employees.org> <52D6931F.9040101@viagenie.ca>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WGLC review of draft-ietf-softwire-map
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 15 Jan 2014 14:01:35 -0000

Simon,

>> yes, apologies being sloppy there. you can use PCP.
>> it may be of limited use, e.g. if your web server is trying to use PCP to open port 80.
> 
> Yes of course. I'm more concerned about modern apps that don't rely on well-known ports.
> 
> My point, concretely, is that the MUSTs above seem to preclude user manipulation of the NAT mappings. I would suggest instead:
> 
>  A MAP CE receiving an IPv6 packet to its MAP IPv6 address sends this
>  packet to the CE's MAP function where it is decapsulated.  All other
>  IPv6 traffic is forwarded as per the CE's IPv6 routing rules.  The
>  resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE's NAT44 function,
>  where it is handled according to the NAT's state.

agree, MAP should treat the NAT as a black box. apart from that it must be port range aware.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email