Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04
Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com> Mon, 12 March 2012 10:51 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 2D40D21F86F3 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, 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 IpsRGans3sAS for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:51:29 -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 244C521F86D8 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so2730390ggm.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:51:26 -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=OoDSXntSk2hpkTkUi7I22xGe6ud+sGBrwgen/Dgv7lw=; b=R4iIfTmRuJVAY3WF0+T8lz/8HOtefuTxzX5u6Zq0yBtLrbFFDguUU/6eOB+TootfG6 jTvbFj6XnmU7uBE3a1R1b+cES+w9ZHpfQ003aTK/YS4BttpQ+B2R+obQqgZ8e3pnDs4e G021W8lhRRswm0sDdhvDgJZMPI5TXb8WEFIkwKCrtLwFHArGb7R//QULyZ6+LQp4RUJd BxZlliDhSExuJXtE4cNMFf4EObDapQNrjxNumCA4zGmc+//P2zV6KcGYRnSIr6Sr1XHP BJ4T9GWthND43yyFUXshLo1nWnM2y2aRNHps2neGB58pti+7ZBgJdpdlc2wAwTomzXN6 kJEA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.223.13 with SMTP id ii13mr8014104qab.39.1331549486736; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.98.21 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <48EF44A9-F13E-4987-946E-B4E6EC18D166@laposte.net>
References: <CAAuHL_CXKw-D=8a-9d-Wmqt9nP69sUwbZoqfQ=Q=QrKskrPeHQ@mail.gmail.com> <48EF44A9-F13E-4987-946E-B4E6EC18D166@laposte.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:51:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFUBMqWxkG2w59eQZCs60jVdpGWbmBRzrCzyqN1tSfDGW-L6fw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3074b47e2865e004bb0986f7"
Cc: Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04
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, 12 Mar 2012 10:51:31 -0000
2012/3/12 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> > Hi, Washam, > > Thanks for your detailed questions and comments. > Answers and further comments in line. > > Le 2012-03-11 à 10:48, Washam Fan a écrit : > > > Hi, > > > > Eventually I get a chance to review this version and have some major > > comments and questions as below. > > > > 1. Relationship with MAP, MAP-T, MAP-E. > > I thought, MAP was expected to be a generic algorithm for stateless > > mapping IPv4 addresses to IPv6 addresses and vice versa. I thought, > > MAP would apply to MAP-T, MAP-E as well as 4rd-u. > > The point is that 4rd-u unifies not only the address format for -T and > -E, but also the header format so that a single standard becomes sufficient. > The 4rd-U technique for this was presented in Taipei, but it didn't arise > interest in the MAP team. Design of 4rd-u had then to become autonomous. > > > But draft 4rd-u-04 > > doesn't mention MAP draft. > > 4rd-u is proposed as an alternative to the 2-standards approach of MAP. > It therefore needs only needs a historical reference to MAP, which is done > in sec. 8. > > > And I see the mapping rules stuff in the > > draft overlapped with MAP. Confused. > > > > I thought, 4rd-u is competing with MAP-T and MAP-E to some extend. > > Would you mind expaund on what benefits 4rd-u can gain exclusively? > > Ideally, there would be a seperate section or even a seperate draft > > for such comparison. > > As announced, an update of draft-despres-softwire-stateless-analysis-tool > will contain a comparison (now to be posted very soon). > > An earlier comparison table was available in > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg03442.html > > In any case, the main benefit is simple: 4rd-U permits, like MAP-T, to use > IPv6-only middle boxes for deep packet inspection and web caches; also, > like MAP-E, it ensures full IPv4 transparency. > > > > 2. NAT64+ stuff. > > My understanding, NAT64+ would translate 4rd tunnel packet as well as > > native IPv6 packet to IPv4 packet and vice verse. Right? > > If the NAT64 is stateful per session, yes, it does translation at layer 4. > NAT64s that are stateless at this layer are however also possible. THis is > independent from 4rd. > > > I don't know > > what the CE delegated prefix in NAT64+ looks like. > > - The delegated prefix is any prefix up to /64 that doesn't match any CE > prefix (R-6 of draft-04)) > - The source of a CE to NAT64+ packet must have the V octet for NAT64+s to > be able to distinguish 4rd packets from other IPv6 packets (def of NAT64+). > - The format is then: > +-----------------------+-------+---+-----------------+------+ > | CE IPv6 prefix | 0 | V | 0 | CNP | > +-----------------------+-------+---+-----------------+------+ > : =< 64 : >= 0 : 8 : 40 : 16 : > > > Yet, it should be clearer in the draft. > Thanks for this (good) question. > > > > Can the native IPv6 > > and 4rd shared the same delegated prefix? > > Yes. (This is the purpose of the V octet) > > may i compare the V-octet with the MAP strategy? #1. shared ipv4 address take an example of delegated prefix 2001:db8:1234:5678::/64 and the IPv4 address for the CE is 0xabcde567, PSID=8. 4rd-U (with V-octet): native IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5678:0200::/72 mapped IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5678:0300::/72 cost: IANA authority on the use of V-bit. MAP (without V-octet): native IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5678::/64 mapped IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5678:02ab:cde5:6780:0000/128 (as a more-specific) cost: almost none. #2. exclusive ipv4 address 2001:db8:1234:5670::/60, IPv4 address 0xabcde567 4rd-U (with V-octet), now aggragation doesn't make sense: native IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5670::/60, 0x02 for 64-71 bit mapped IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5670::/60, 0x03 for 64-71 bit cost: IANA authority on the use of V-bit; implementation cannot take the logic of longest-match! MAP (without V-octet): native IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5670::/60 mapped IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5670:02ab:cde5:6700:0000/128 (as a more-specific) cost: almost none. #3. exclusive ipv4 subnet 2001:db8:1234:5600::/56, IPv4 address 0xabcde560~0xabcde56f 4rd-U (with V-octet), now aggragation doesn't make sense: native IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5600::/60, 0x02 for 64-71 bit mapped IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5600::/60, 0x03 for 64-71 bit cost: IANA authority on the use of V-bit; implementation cannot take the logic of longest-match! MAP (without V-octet): native IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5600::/56 mapped IPv6: 2001:db8:1234:5600:02ab:cde5:6000:0000/128 (as a more-specific) 2001:db8:1234:5610:02ab:cde5:6100:0000/128 (as a more-specific) ... 2001:db8:1234:56f0:02ab:cde5:6f00:0000/128 (as a more-specific) cost: a number of more-specific to identify the mapped things; but it won't leaked out beyond the CE. if the well-developed longest-match can work, why should we need another mechanism? cheers, maoke > > if Yes, how to distinguish > > them? > > See above. > > > the figure 6 seems to me it was talking about destination IPv6 > > address derivation. > > Right. > > > > IIRC, NAT64 supports hair pinning, doesn't it? Would NAT64+ support > > harpinning between 4rd tunnel packet and native IPv6 packet? > > The only evolution of NAT64 to make it a NAT64+ is its use of tunneling > instead of RFC6145 translation, for all IPv6 addresses that have the V > octet. (No other behavior needs to be modified.) > > > > Personally, I'd like NAT64+ removed from the draft. It might deserve a > > seperate draft. > > This way, it would make the draft more understanding > > for readers who are new to 4rd-u. > > The specification has to explain conditions in which a CE can tunnel IPv4 > packets although it has no assigned public IPv4 address, even shared. > Explaining more what is NAT64+ is IMHO better than explaining less. > > > > 3. Fragments. > > The algorithm proposed in R-9, would have applied to generic NAT > > generally. Why it is specific to 4rd BR? > > NATs may have to remember not only destination ports but also source ports. > A similar algorithm could however apply to NAT64s, but this is off 4rd > scope. > > > > Anyway BR would keep fragment > > They MAY, but AFAIK don't need to if they use R-9 algorithm. > > > state somehow and anycase BR facing IPv4 Internet would be impossible. > > In the CE to BR direction, destinations are full IPv4 addresses so that > each fragment can be individually forwarded. > Sec 4.5.3 ensures that packet IDs from 2 CEs cannot be the same, so that > no port-based check is needed to ensure that no CE can spoof fragments > from another CE. > > > Regards, > RD > > > > > > > Thanks, > > washam > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
- [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04 Washam Fan
- Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04 Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04 Washam Fan
- Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04 Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04 Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04 Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Comments on 4rd-u-04 Rémi Després