Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd
Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com> Thu, 15 March 2012 01:04 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 CB6A911E8073 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.247, 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 v6vVHEXBzTBq for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E6621F87B5 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so2842239ggm.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:04:38 -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 :content-type; bh=vfs8Cx0laYO6mlBLLNAmnHg4rR7VRmluBHoirZkpsV8=; b=S8CspdpDJZ3Uo/0tqk06CMGpbgbAgDz+owfhN3T0rLREg4eKLZbCfvZdHDYsPhq2Uq ng2SlS91+jcEZHvd0GjOQZ2aYK++icNsRC3wx2AwplmTRpg8YbJvzs8zQaKpOHNNoQsF fjmBLHzKzOfB7hPzL44Uq1vbUX3mvsYMhfEWNuK5G+jb+CaCt2iC9DH/wr7OONqjL8HU RUM34VJkLFoqWxONaoigJnTF8VeN0fFyy75VqsUpAzAUoBbYHvw20UT60ym7KNUGkEVQ oH2FAKQxNCIusy5Z8r3L6B2yVvMK2Aal/Wz0nP+lxbnXvGiZQgy3yhm7ff/6VJuaxcUr SNDg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.223.13 with SMTP id ii13mr5774692qab.39.1331773478787; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.98.21 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8A2DF2DD-C961-4A90-AD62-9C2F647E1A9F@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> <CAFUBMqXi02DcrTkJ3zjt4fv8EvVJPfAv=CTkM7gesi95jNQSQQ@mail.gmail.com> <8A2DF2DD-C961-4A90-AD62-9C2F647E1A9F@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:04:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFUBMqXuvBt6DD8JpWt_5+JP33ETqTrz3KbSRm1Kp9ZQBjqs+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
To: Washam Fan <washam.fan@gmail.com>, Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3074b47e1fd9af04bb3dad76"
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:04:40 -0000
2012/3/14 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> > > Le 2012-03-14 à 10:46, Maoke a écrit : > > > > 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. > > > 1. I agree that, between CEs and BRs, there can be no problem for DCCP > (provided the draft is completed to this effect). The comparison table was > explicitly made with existing drafts, and intended to be updatable. > > 2. The MAP-T draft is also claimed to allow "communication between > IPv4-only, as well as any IPv6 enabled end hosts, to native IPv6-only > servers in the domain that are using IPv4-mapped IPv6 address". In this > case, AFAIK, the backward compatibility problem exists > Thought? > surely it does not exist. that statement applies to the MAP-T-compliant equipments, when it is used as a IPv4-to-IPv6 single translator or as an native IPv6 router. same deployment of equipments should support double-translation, single-translation, and native IPv6 accesses simultanenously. that's one of the points of the MAP-T. - maoke > > > 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. > > > Will see what to do, then, when changes to the MAP-T draft concerning DCCP > are known. > > RD > > > > > 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