Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Stateless Address Mappings (SAMs) - new draft
Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> Fri, 07 November 2008 14:17 UTC
Return-Path: <softwires-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: softwires-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-softwires-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2FFB3A6A4C; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:17:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8E43A690A; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:17:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_BACKHAIR_44=1, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q4vIAdH1VRh4; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp6-g19.free.fr (smtp6-g19.free.fr [212.27.42.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C543A67A1; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 06:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp6-g19.free.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF4E61979A; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:16:27 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ordinateur-de-remi-despres.local (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by smtp6-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13BC19708; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:16:20 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49144D53.4010706@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:14:43 +0100
From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
References: <4911CDAB.2010309@free.fr> <E9CACA3D8417CE409FE3669AAE1E5A4F0A10A7C6A4@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <E9CACA3D8417CE409FE3669AAE1E5A4F0A10A7C6A4@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040904060804040701040808"
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, "v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org" <v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org>, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Stateless Address Mappings (SAMs) - new draft
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Sender: softwires-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: softwires-bounces@ietf.org
Thanks for your detailed comments, and for the useful pointers to relevant RFCs and I-Ds.
More comments below.
Regards,
RD
Dave Thaler (1-12/1-31/200x) 11/5/08 9:47 PM:
Yes, section 3.6 is clearly in the scope of Behave.I have read this draft. In my opinion, it is within the scope of Softwires but may be of interest to some Behave folks. The only real part I can see that might be within the scope of Behave is section 3.6 where it discusses scrambling IPv6 addresses as packets flow through a SAM.
IMU, this is also the case for section 3.2.3 on the port-prefix based extended IPv4 addresses: it concerns "Division of port space to share one IPv4 addresses among multiple endpoints at the same time", which Magnus Westerlund announced to be in Behave's scope (e-mail attached).
As this has strong relationship with Margaret's NAT66 draft, trying to regroup the contents could IMHO make sense, but to be discussed more.I'd suggest this be separated into its own draft since it's largely orthogonal to the rest of the document (which is more about encapsulation, not translation).
- With extended IPv4 addresses, pings are indeed impossible (like across NATs or any address sharing mechanism).Technical comments: 1) The draft doesn't say what will break and probably should (ping, well-known ports, etc). Some of the same problems that occur with multilink subnets (RFC 4903) occur in this proposal too, since not everything will be aware that the "subnet" isn't an IP prefix. Similarly, the required Subnet-Router Anycast addresses (RFC 4291 section 2.6.1) may not work correctly.
- I agree that a sentence on it is appropriate (I even had one at some stage, but lost it later on.)
- Whether a problem related to multilink subnets does appear with the proposal is still unclear to me.
- It seems unnecessary that "everything" be aware that a subnet IT is longer than 64 to keep the rule of only one link per subnet. Note that in 3.2.3 the mentioned prefix is that of a "subnetwork", not that of a "subnet" as defined for IPv6. Instead of "subnetwork", "local routing domain" should be better .
- I tried not to assume completely that it was that way, but I agree that the point should be developped.2) The draft assumes that the first fragment always arrives first. As discussed in draft-iab-ip-model-evolution-01.txt section 3.1.7, this is not a safe assumption today.
- Would you have details on a real case where a provider routinely disorders packets having same source and same destination (the only case of concern here). IMU, this would be _very bad_ for many TCP implementations.
Right, the next version should clarify that what is said about the "u" bit only applies to addresses that don't start with 000.3) The use of the "u" bit in IIDs seems problematic for several reasons. One, it only applies to IPv6 addresses that don't start with binary 000.
Right. Saying it as I did in section 3.6 is a bug. Thanks for seeing it.Two, the semantics of the bit defined in RFC 4291 have to do with making it easy to configure non-conflicting addresses, and are not about privacy demands; overloading this bit for a second purpose seems problematic.
Actually, the SAM privacy protection should rather be applicable only to v6E addresses. The level of privacy achieved with the SAA privacy extension of RFC 4941 would then stands for itself in global addresses.
Yes, all external edge SAMs must obviously have the same scrambling method.4) Regarding the IPv6 address scrambling in section 3.6, not defining the scrambling (or at least not providing requirements for it) would be problematic in two regards. 1) If you allow asymmetric paths then you need the same algorithm in each SAM at the edge of your network; 2) some implementations may pick a weak method that allows an outsider to guess the algorithm.
At least for this reason, standardizing a default scrambling is useful, I agree (coexistence of edge SAMs from different suppliers etc.)
It remains that vendors may propose, as options, whatever scrambling method they feel may be better .
Comments inline (along with a bunch of editorial nits) in PDF attached. -Dave-----Original Message----- From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Després Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:46 AM To: Softwires WG; Behave WG Cc: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org Subject: [BEHAVE] Stateless Address Mappings (SAMs) - new draft The new draft on SAMs is at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-despres-sam-01.txt" rel="nofollow">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-despres-sam-01.txt. It deal with global connectivity, in IPv4, IPv6, and extended IPv4, across local domains where routing is different. - Its automatic tunneling aspects are in the new scope of Softwires - Its IPv4 address extension aspects, based on dynamic-port prefixes, are in the scope of Behave. Regards RD _______________________________________________ Behave mailing list Behave@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
--- Begin Message ---IETF Community, There has been a lot of activity on the topic of improving IPv4 and IPv6 coexistence, deployment of IPv6, and coping with the increasing shortage of unassigned IPv4 addresses. This work crosses a number of layer and area boundaries, which has led to new lists, cross-posting, etc. In order to limit confusion, we'd like to give some guidance on where to discuss what on which lists. The intent is not to declare any work as in or out of charter with this message, only to try and direct list discussion. These are only general guidelines, so please don't be alarmed if we missed something in particular. Our hope is that this will help everyone to continue the rich dialog on this important topic. 1. softwires@ietf.org Softwires is chartered to work on combinations of IPv4/IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, including "dual-stack lite" functionality. This includes discussion related to: - All types of IPv4/IPv6 tunnels, including encapsulation, control plane, etc. - Affects of tunnel endpoints terminating into a concentrator performing IPv4 to IPv4 NAT - Discovery of tunnel endpoints - Tunnels initiated by hosts or gateways - Tunnels automatically setup by routing and special prefixes Thus, if it involves a tunnel or encapsulation of IPvX over IPvY, softwires is the place to go. 2. behave@ietf.org The Behave WG is currently being rechartered. If the new charter is approved, behave will work on various types of IPv4<->IPv6 translation. Please direct all discussion related to: - IPv4 to IPv6 and IPv6 to IPv4 translation - IPv6 to IPv6 NAT - Division of port space to share one IPv4 addresses among multiple endpoints at the same time - Affects on applications and transport protocols - ALGs - IPv4 to IPv4 NAT functionality, including for ISP deployments Thus, if discussion involves an IP translator or the internal function of a NAT, behave is the place to go. 3. v6ops@ietf.org - Operational discussions on the topic of coexistence in general - IPv6-only deployment Thus, if it involves operational issues of IPv6 or IPv4 exhaustion, go to v6ops. 4. The v4v6interim@ietf.org list will be removed after the Minneapolis IETF meeting. Jari Arkko Ron Bonica Lars Eggert Mark Townsley Magnus Westerlund Resources: WGs Behave: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/behave-charter.html Softwire: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/softwire-charter.html v6ops: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html _______________________________________________ v4v6interim mailing list v4v6interim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
- [Softwires] Stateless Address Mappings (SAMs) - n… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Stateless Address Mappin… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Stateless Address Mappin… Dave Thaler