[Softwires] The port mapping issue

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Wed, 27 March 2013 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@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 64BEC21F905C for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.171
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 AlMycfklJ940 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com (mail-ie0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA45221F9052 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id k11so10453786iea.10 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=Z1OtrxTQ1nCb3Ay1frMlzMW9AiFoNJ6Z1reu4Qdn/dc=; b=KFGVRC3O08jhMB+JQi9YnPa9Ux/v+gqt7nP77bucQ6IUUxq8sRLE2DW9BUPBMIqvtJ 4Wku5Egx8nwLr2eYvHNMUXrmfstduvhkooMXprVuRQtLpblmvQ50PIpKMGV84NYkDT+O 9MKPuOIvRno/M7PmKzJ8B8LOLVp/IpVZKpa0h07mv/0WWCeMEzLqL9Bk04OQNRkQOjVl Bd8xh0QJaS3bJViXQOtFjE51ec/FG5ClGSeaKMkytofDI6rLt+wOLLCZJ5a4PZTbrnNy mI9l/6OzCYxY1LdFTt6c7p+b8OOeIMZMHbpod63U2Py6VbizpZsiyIzlhQ8gHXGwW8fg pBfQ==
X-Received: by 10.42.215.196 with SMTP id hf4mr11987020icb.23.1364399960499; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([64.56.244.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y5sm7667647igg.7.2013.03.27.08.59.19 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51531757.8000707@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:59:19 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: softwires@ietf.org
References: <51512618.8070704@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <51512618.8070704@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130327-0, 27/03/2013), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Subject: [Softwires] The port mapping issue
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: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:59:21 -0000

The meeting minutes record a disagreement over what port mapping 
algorithm to use. This affects both MAP-E and LW 4over6. As I understand it:

- either of these two technologies will work with either contiguous 
ports or ports scattered according to the GMA algorithm

- the real objection to GMA comes from Alain Durand, who wants to set up 
simple min-port, max-port filters on his network equipment.


We all agree that port scattering offers negligible security advantage.

The reason that I heard given for preferring GMA for MAP-E is that it 
eliminates a restriction on the End-User Ipv6 address because the PSID 
is free to range from 0 upwards rather than from some higher number 
upwards. I don't follow this argument for two reasons:

- you now have a restriction that the offset field A must range from 1 
upwards

- the PSID field has an upper limit 2^k-1 imposed by the sharing ratio, 
imposing a further restriction on the End-User IPv6 address value.

Could someone spell out more clearly why the GMA was seen as necessary 
for MAP-E?