Re: [Softwires] MAP&4rd-U - DS routing replaced by v6-only routing in hub&spoke topology

Satoru Matsushima <> Tue, 07 February 2012 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C760321F87C7 for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:26:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00lgELM4ipxi for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AB821F87B4 for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by werm10 with SMTP id m10so6253327wer.31 for <>; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:26:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=AKg8l9vq36kos6quOWUTV33dtHsT99XoyRusWog4ePQ=; b=I/86NqduN+3TpDmRCfBAgivofbvYQiI0M99V4H629MN5FD6mZ9/b/THGz4R3bTJY8H Kd5AZaDzcr6mZrE7iu0cxQzrfPO6ODANY3117j2dOpWR8RdSfF5PbdSm/EEkobZubcmG wkOJ56cpqOWXj/mGsrux8Z3jqtPONm5xzS8OY=
Received: by with SMTP id r65mr7219241wei.46.1328624807388; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id q7sm32485889wix.5.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:26:46 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Satoru Matsushima <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:26:41 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9mi_Despr=C3=A9s?= <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: Softwires WG <>, Wojciech Dec <>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP&4rd-U - DS routing replaced by v6-only routing in hub&spoke topology
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:26:52 -0000

On 2012/02/07, at 14:03, Rémi Després wrote:

> Le 2012-02-07 à 13:07, Satoru Matsushima a écrit :
>> Hi Remi-san,
>> On 2012/02/07, at 11:13, Rémi Després wrote:
>>> Hello Ole, Tetsuya-san, Wojciech,
>>> In a use case described in the 4rd-U draft (sec 5.3), an ISP replaces its dual-stack routing by IPv6-only routing.
>>> For this, independently from the number of IPv4 prefixes it has to support, it uses only one mapping rule.
>>> (By replacing each IPv4 route by an equivalent IPv6 route, it ensures that all customers keep their IPv4 addresses.)
>> I don't think that it could work as you explained in that section. For example, the BR would need to check a received packet from a CE whether it has correct source address in mapping rule or not. It means that the BR must know all address mappings for CE between IPv4 addresses and IPv6 prefixes. Is it correct understanding?
> Ingress filtering of the domain has checked that the IPv6 source starts with the delegated IPv6 prefix, a /112 which includes the IPv4 address. In the 4rd-E case, the BR checks that the source address in the IPv4 header matches that of the IPv6 address. There is therefore no need for the BR to know all IPv4 prefixes. At its IPv4 interface, all received packets start with one of them. At its IPv6 interface, all packets it receives have an embedded address that starts with one of these prefixes. 

It looks like that you treat default mapping rule as a basic mapping rule to check source address consistency on the BR. It should work, and the MAP too.

>> I think that operators who already deploy such dual-stack network is supposed that they have address mapping table,
> I would rather suppose that ISPs that have added IPv6-prefix delegation, say /56s, to an existing IPv4 network did it without mixing their IPv6 plan with their IPv4 prefixes.
> I am ready, however, to look seriously at individual cases where choices were different.

Basically provision MAP CE is based on its delegated IPv6 prefix in concept. It is opposed to your case but technically possible. Now I concern that it requires much complicated CE implementation. 


> Regards,
> RD
>> they can provision each CE individually, and also they are capable to distribute the default mapping rule since they should install it into the CEs. In that situation, what's the motivation of why the operator want to provision with only default mapping rule?
>> cheers,
>> --satoru
>>> For this to work, the 4rd-U draft has a bit that, in the hub&spoke case, differs between CE-to-BR and BR-to-CE directions. Thus, packets sent to a CE take different routes depending on whether sent by a CE or a BR.
>>> I don't see how the equivalent could work with the MAP documents you edited.
>>> Is it that such a use case is out of scope for MAP?
>>> Or did I miss something?
>>> Cheers,
>>> RD
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list