Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 16 February 2015 10:59 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 F1B491A87BC for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:59:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 yO80IDpB8ptp for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51FF71A87CC for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:59:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE9761CE; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:59:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=yo6ea/81iK1irxuy5A0GIZ052qQ=; b= fs8jq2TVOjpVQXQ/jTwGPR6owwy61HhmMi621p2W12pYajJqmVsYq3NoYxY7f2py 54ZMOK7OK6lBmvqVzKh2Lu9rbHQ6L2wgObl+RIK9RkXybpsEx0Si2//91mx3Njnm 1gpa7quntltNTwekJjhg9xxyDPucUX5jKsiAQ0Fu6dg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=pfMepi+1RD4XrEqWGAVlqdaUOD OClsVmxZwpSngbgvv1hfzdSh49detc4Y5KlqX9NJaUjNWGE5s0RKVvFfP6wn1EQ1 GtGgIcP0YC60jxAiwaXlYC9vMYIyntK8gjnzZxP10wVCNIlm9eE449tTPqQ9/Gx0 AzcdgJhe/afCgh29Q=
Received: from OTROAN-M-Q0RH.localdomain (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32F1D6129; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 02:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by OTROAN-M-Q0RH.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3623F3EC95EA; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:59:02 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_03515D8F-3E6F-411B-BB4A-C4F02CFE7EBF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b5
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <54e056b8.0d886b0a.535d.ffffcb06@mx.google.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:59:01 +0100
Message-Id: <23E01BC7-AD3C-4083-804E-21AEE5447FD1@employees.org>
References: <20141124073912.16300.97956.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54e056b8.0d886b0a.535d.ffffcb06@mx.google.com>
To: Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/lfX0NCP5I52AQSsyhROc3wTfYcc>
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
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: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:59:08 -0000

Leaf,

thanks, let's see if we can get these in during the AUTH48.

cheers,
Ole


> On 15 Feb 2015, at 9:20 , Leaf Yeh <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I got a late read on this draft, and may find some editorial nits:
> 
> #1. In sec. 3,
>    "  End-user IPv6 prefix:   The IPv6 prefix assigned to an End-user CE by
>                            other means than MAP itself.  E.g.,
>                            Provisioned using DHCPv6 PD [RFC3633],
>                            assigned via SLAAC [RFC4862], or configured
>                            manually.  It is unique for each CE. "
> 
> Q. Does the above means ' End-user IPv6 prefix ' includes 's bits' (the subnet ID) in Fig.3?
> 
> But in sec. 5.2,
> "  The MAP IPv6 address is created by concatenating the End-user IPv6
>    prefix with the MAP subnet identifier (if the End-user IPv6 prefix is
>    shorter than 64 bits) and the interface identifier as specified in
>    Section 6.  "
> 
> Q. Does the above means ' End-user IPv6 prefix ' does not include 's bits' (the subnet ID) in Fig.3? I guess we could include 's bits' (the subnet ID= MAP subnet identifier) into ' End-user IPv6 prefix '.
> 
> And in sec. 6,
> "  If the End-user IPv6 prefix length is larger than 64, the most
>    significant parts of the interface identifier is overwritten by the
>    prefix.  "
> 
> Q. Does the above means ' End-user IPv6 prefix ' includes 's bits' (the subnet ID) in Fig.3?
> 
> 
> #2. In sec. 5.1,
> "     For 'a' > 0, A MUST be
>       larger than 0.  This ensures that the algorithm excludes the
>       system ports.  For the default value of a (6), the system ports,
>       are excluded by requiring that A be greater than 0.  Smaller
>       values of a excludes a larger initial range.  E.g., a = 4, will
>       exclude ports 0 - 4095.  The interval between initiaL port numbers
>       of successive contiguous ranges assigned to the same user is
>       2^(16-a).   "
> 
> I prefer the above sentence could be
> "     For 'a' > 0, 'A' MUST be
>       larger than 0.  This ensures that the algorithm excludes the
>       system ports.  Smaller
>       values of 'a' excludes a larger initial range; e.g. 'a' = 4, will
>       exclude ports 0 - 4095.  The interval between initial port numbers
>       of successive contiguous ranges assigned to the same user is
>       2^(16-a).   "
> 
> 
> #3. In Fig.7 of sec. 5.3,
> “                   +----------+         +------------+
>                    |IPv4  sufx|         |Port-Set ID |
>                    +----------+         +------------+  ”
> I prefer the above ‘sufx’ could to be ‘suffix’.
> 
> 
> #4. In sec.6,
> “  The PSID field is left-padded to create a
>    16 bit field.  For an IPv4 prefix or a complete IPv4 address, the
>    PSID field is zero.”
> 
> Q. Does the about ‘zero’ means the value of the PSID=0x 00, or the length of the PSID is zero? I guess it means the former, right?
> 
> 
> #5. In Fig.8 of sec.6,
> “The Interface identifier format of a MAP node is described below.
>   |          128-n-o-s bits          |
>    | 16 bits|    32 bits     | 16 bits|
>    +--------+----------------+--------+
>    |   0    |  IPv4 address  |  PSID  |
>    +--------+----+-----------+--------+  ”
> 
> I think BR does not need to use the above IID. I prefer to replace the word ‘MAP node’ to be ‘MAP CE’. Right?
> The above format looks like ‘128-n-o-s =64, but that is not always true. I prefer the IID format of MAP CE could be:
>   |          128-n-o-s bits          |
>    | <=16 bits|    32 bits     | 16 bits|
>    +--------+----------------+--------+
>    |   all 0s    |  IPv4 address  |  PSID  |
>    +--------+----+-----------+--------+  ”
> 
> 
> #6. In sec. 8.1,
> “  Secondly, the node extracts the source IPv4
>    address and port from the IPv4 packet embedded inside the IPv6
>    packet.  If they are found to be outside the acceptable range, the
>    packet MUST be silently discard and a counter incremented to indicate
>    that a potential spoofing attack may be underway.”
> 
> I guess the better to substitute the above word ‘embedded’ could be ‘encapsulated’, right?
> 
> 
> #7. In sec. 11
> “     They cannot
>       exist with MAP because each BRs checks that the IPv6 source
>       address of a received IPv6 packet is a CE address based on
>       Forwarding Mapping Rule. ”
> 
> I think BRs check that the IPv6 source address of a received IPv6 packet is a CE address based on Basic Mapping Rule, and check that the IPv6 destination address of a received IPv6 packet is a CE address based on Forwarding Mapping Rule, right?
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Leaf
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 3:39 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org
> Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF.
> 
>         Title           : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP)
>         Authors         : Ole Troan
>                           Wojciech Dec
>                           Xing Li
>                           Congxiao Bao
>                           Satoru Matsushima
>                           Tetsuya Murakami
>                           Tom Taylor
>          Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
>          Pages           : 32
>          Date            : 2014-11-23
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets
>    across an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, and a generic
>    mechanism for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and
>    transport layer ports.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map/
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-12
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-12
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires