Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparency to IPv4 TOS
Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com> Mon, 17 October 2011 13:30 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 C942A21F8B98 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 3dyrCsMEiXkp for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24ED21F8783 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qadb12 with SMTP id b12so2680918qad.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mpF0z1hZYcx+qSYTYPu6Ab47mPXaRjcq606CuWFJWqw=; b=uDcvtFdOxhFqZx5wg/HP19fUqwIRHBGXnQZl5Xi+QZmKkMHdFxKlDhDronGJUF2T7c LQoGHTyMYIgBd2WTBbOzTbWdJ75RFBp4soE/wXasm+cd63V5coL9LYlKWznTlzNvRlDu 2YWxiYBYSFlb1ls2dNS/TBlAWKOixacLWE7H4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.9.81 with SMTP id k17mr4009406qak.24.1318858217523; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.214.212 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <83A72484-7A54-4A30-AF9B-5FC9D97A9E14@gmail.com>
References: <85015B23-C124-43DB-913D-3829B895C2A9@laposte.net> <83A72484-7A54-4A30-AF9B-5FC9D97A9E14@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:30:17 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFUBMqWrw8e7sO80U74Q+UvJwW_sqxZZnnwTo7jhyayFBn5_Mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
To: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec519617b908a3c04af7e9be4"
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparency to IPv4 TOS
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:30:18 -0000
hi Satoru-san, may i understand that, as Remi's proposal is applied for the double translation case, TTL being translated to IPv6 Hop Limit is enough? as is stated in RFC6145, translator is a "router" and therefore the behavior should not be as same as the virtual link. right? regards, maoke 2011/10/17 Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com> > Hi Remi-san, > > > With this added, I believe that 4rd-U is a real progress over previously > proposed Double translation and Encapsulation. > > It can make IMHO a valuable unified standard. > > Not enough. The original TTL value in IPv4 header must be carried. > > cheers, > --satoru > > > On 2011/10/17, at 21:36, Rémi Després wrote: > > > Hi Satoru-san, > > > > Thank you for identifying a limitation of the 4rd-U > > You are right, as currently specified, "it doesn't support diff-serv > tunneling model, pipe and short-pipe". > > All these need e2e transparency to the IPv4 Type of Service. > > > > Fortunately, this is easy to fix: in the Identification field of the IPv6 > Fragment header, copy not only the DF bits but also the IPv4 TOS. > > > > The proposed 4r-U packet format becomes: > > > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |Vers=6 | TrafClass | Flow Label | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Payload Length |Next Header=44 | Hop Limit | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > + + > > | | > > + IPv6 Source Address + > > | | > > + + > > | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | | > > + + > > | | > > + IPv6 Destination Address + > > | | > > + + > > | | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Next Header | Reserved | IPv6 Fragment Offset | 0 |M| > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |D| 0 | IPv4 TOS | IPv4 Identification | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | IPv4 Payload | > > | | > > > > With this added, I believe that 4rd-U is a real progress over previously > proposed Double translation and Encapsulation. > > It can make IMHO a valuable unified standard. > > > > Yet, I may have missed something else. > > New justified objections are therefore most welcome.. > > > > > > Regards, > > RD > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
- [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparency t… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Ole Troan
- [Softwires] ECN [4rd-U complement - e2e transpare… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Softwires] ECN [4rd-U complement - e2e trans… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Mark Townsley
- Re: [Softwires] ECN [4rd-U complement - e2e trans… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Softwires] ECN [4rd-U complement - e2e trans… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Standardizing "4rd-U" vs "4rd-Enc… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Standardizing "4rd-U" vs "4rd-Enc… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Softwires] Standardizing "4rd-U" vs "4rd-Enc… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Tetsuya Murakami
- Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparen… Rémi Després