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
- [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-1… internet-drafts
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Xing Li
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Leaf Yeh
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-m… Ole Troan