Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation
Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com> Wed, 12 October 2011 07:41 UTC
Return-Path: <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.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 6090421F8B15 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 hM76VhfwqmIE for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D4B21F8A6F for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSX00KB0Z9T8L@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:25:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSX00BWVZ9TY3@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:25:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEE60876; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:25:05 +0800
Received: from SZXEML409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.136) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:24:58 +0800
Received: from SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.227]) by szxeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.136]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:24:58 +0800
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:24:57 +0000
From: Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <77E5DB2B-70A2-4797-AE89-5D6A5D8E514F@gmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.70.39.98]
To: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>, Tetsuya Murakami <tetsuya@ipinfusion.com>
Message-id: <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA05767E7E@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-language: zh-CN
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation
Thread-index: AQHMh0ClppljXMMUk0246OCDrJF2JZV2S26AgACkO2D//4ysgIABxLiA
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <F259BF79-B3C9-4434-AAC4-9F84B8D9A0FA@laposte.net> <16C872EF-F79E-4FD8-89B9-21B50129BA70@employees.org> <2118E521-F0CC-46F3-9F63-0EC6893326C6@laposte.net> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA0576663D@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <F0571321-3F33-49DE-9350-1060AEF1532F@gmail.com> <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA05766BB8@SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com> <77E5DB2B-70A2-4797-AE89-5D6A5D8E514F@gmail.com>
Cc: Softwires-wg <softwires@ietf.org>, "fine_sz@huawei.com" <fine_sz@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation
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, 12 Oct 2011 07:41:19 -0000
Satoru -> I think we could have it. Tetsuya Murakami -> the decapsulation could be done for the packet having the tunnel end-point address as the destination or having the specific IPv6 prefix as the destination. Does that mean BR needs to inject a route pointing to the BR subnet prefix, and using one interface address of BR as the next-hop of this prefix in the route? That means routes can direct the packets go to the right interface of the BR, right? Best Regards, Leaf -----Original Message----- From: Satoru Matsushima [mailto:satoru.matsushima@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:25 PM To: Leaf yeh Cc: Satoru Matsushima; Rémi Després; Ole Troan; Softwires-wg; fine_sz@huawei.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation On 2011/10/11, at 20:00, Leaf yeh wrote: >> Remi - >> A Destination address from a CE to the outside IPv4 Internet is: >>>> <--------- 64 ------------>< 8 ><---- 32 ----><--- 16 ----><8 > >>>> +--------------------------+----+---------------+------------+---+ >>>> | BR subnet prefix | V | IPv4 address | 0 |32 | >>>> +--------------------------+----+---------------+------------+---+ > Leaf -> In fact, I doubts we could have the same address mapping for both tunnel and translation. Supposed the address of tunnel end-points is preferred to be fixed, but the address for the translation could be variable. > Satoru -> I think we could have it. > > What is the definition of the IPv4 address in the above format? Is it the destination IPv4 address of any hosts outside 4rd IPv4 domain in the internet? I believe that the embedded IPv4 address should be an IPv4 address of a host on outside the domain. cheers, --satoru > > > Best Regards, > Leaf > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Satoru Matsushima [mailto:satoru.matsushima@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:30 PM > To: Leaf yeh > Cc: Satoru Matsushima; Rémi Després; Ole Troan; Softwires-wg; fine_sz@huawei.com > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation > > Leaf, thanks for the summary. > > On 2011/10/10, at 20:34, Leaf yeh wrote: > >> Remi - >> a1- If the CE has an exclusive or shared IPv4 address: >>>> <--------- 64 ------------><8 ><------ L >= 32 -------><48-L><8 > >>>> +-------------+--------+---+---+----------------+------+-----+---+ >>>> | IPv6 prefix |CE index| 0 | V | IPv4 address | PSID | 0 | L | >>>> +-------------+--------+---+---+----------------+------+-----+---+ >> Ole - > putting the IPv4 address / port information at the end of the interface identifier will allow for > /64 support. > what's the L? >> Remi - Don't see what you found unclear. >> >> >> Question: Supposed the question is on the last field, named 'L', in the new address format. >> > > Since Remi's draft doesn't specify 'CE IPv6 prefix length', IPv6 prefix can't be self delimiting to extract IPv4 address and port-set ID in the case of double translation. That's my understanding. Is that correct? > As '4rd-a', and 4via6(draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation), the 'L' bits are not necessary because 'CE IPv6 prefix length' is defined through a domain, instead of 'L'. > > >> >> Remi - >> A Destination address from a CE to the outside IPv4 Internet is: >>>> <--------- 64 ------------>< 8 ><---- 32 ----><--- 16 ----><8 > >>>> +--------------------------+----+---------------+------------+---+ >>>> | BR subnet prefix | V | IPv4 address | 0 |32 | >>>> +--------------------------+----+---------------+------------+---+ >> Ole - this is a big change for encapsulation, where prior to this encapsulation means sending to a single destination. >> Remi - Copying an available IPv4 address at a fixed place isn't IMHO a "big change". >> >> >> Concern: Supposed the replacement of the 1st 64bits of the BR address with a subnet prefix is not for the tunnel case if the field of IPv4 address can be variable, right? > > I think that it could be a case where the BR address with a subnet prefix for the tunnel case. My concern rather than the BR address is that a CE should pick packets up which have 'V' in IID, even destined prefixes are delegated to nodes which are behind of the CE. > > >> >> In fact, I doubts we could have the same address mapping for both tunnel and translation. Supposed the address of tunnel end-points is preferred to be fixed, but the address for the translation could be variable. >> > > I think we could have it. > > cheers, > --satoru > > >> >> Best Regards, >> Leaf >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Després >> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 6:07 PM >> To: Ole Troan >> Cc: Softwires-wg >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and double-translation >> >> >> Le 6 oct. 2011 à 18:47, Ole Troan a écrit : >> >>> Remi, >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> 2. >>>> (a) >>>> The IPv6 Source address of an IPv4 packet from a CE is: >>>> >>>> a1- If the CE has an exclusive or shared IPv4 address: >>>> >>>> <--------- 64 ------------><8 ><------ L >= 32 -------><48-L><8 > >>>> +-------------+--------+---+---+----------------+------+-----+---+ >>>> | IPv6 prefix |CE index| 0 | V | IPv4 address | PSID | 0 | L | >>>> +-------------+--------+---+---+----------------+------+-----+---+ >>> >>> putting the IPv4 address / port information at the end of the interface identifier will allow for > /64 support. >> >> Could you explain more the requirement you have in mind? >> >>> what's the L? >> >> On the picture, L is 32 bits + Length(PSID). >> Don't see what you found unclear. >> >>> >>> you suggest that the first subnet of an allocation should be used for this purpose. >> >> Did I do this? >> Please explain because that's not, IMHO, something to be done. >> >>> the first subnet is convenient to use for e.g. manual addressing (since it allows the :: short hand). >>> I do wonder if this has to be provisioned. e.g. some deployments may use the first subnet for the link between >>> CE and PE. (i.e. a /56 - 1 using the PD exclude option is used). >> >> See just above. >> >>> >>>> a2- If the CE has an IPv4 prefix: >>>> >>>> <--------- 64 ------------><8 ><-- L < 32 --><--- 48-L -----><8 > >>>> +-------------+--------+---+---+-------------+---------------+---+ >>>> | IPv6 prefix |CE index| 0 | V | IPv4 prefix | 0 | L | >>>> +-------------+--------+---+---+-------------+---------------+---+ >>>> >>>> (b) >>>> V is the mark that characterizes IPv6 packets that are in reality IPv4 packets. >>>> Its value differs from any permitted value of this octet in IPv6 IIDs (ref RFC 4291). >>>> >>>> It is understood that, if double Translation coexists with single translation, concerned ISPs may notify their CEs to use the U octet of RFC 6052 instead of V. >>>> >>>> An unambiguous mark is fortunately possible because currently permitted IIDs have in their first octet either bit6 = 0 (the "u" bit"), or bit6 = 1 and bit7= 0 (the "g" bit). >>>> With V having "u" = 1 (signifying Universal scope) AND "g" = 1, distinction is therefore deterministic. >>>> >>>> The proposed V is = 00000011. >>>> (With other values of this octet, other IID formats can be defined in case some would be useful in the future.) >>>> >>>> Note that, if and when a consensus is reached in Softwire, an extension of RFC 4291 will have to be submitted to 6MAN. >>> >>> or rather IEEE? >> >> IMHO, IEEE has nothing to do with a marker that is purposely an escape mechanism from the modified EUI-64 format of RFC 4291. >> >>> I am not convinced that "V" is needed. >> >> The point is more, IMHO, whether you have an objection to it (and in this case which one). >> Reason is that we are working for a consensus, and several are satisfied with the explanation that there are use cases where it is useful, and none where it is harmful. >> >>> you could even use the IANA OUI if pretty printing was required. >> >> The point is that it takes 32 bits which is too much to have IPv4 address + PSID in the IID. >> >> >>>> (c) >>>> A Destination address from a CE to the outside IPv4 Internet is: >>>> <--------- 64 ------------>< 8 ><---- 32 ----><--- 16 ----><8 > >>>> +--------------------------+----+---------------+------------+---+ >>>> | BR subnet prefix | V | IPv4 address | 0 |32 | >>>> +--------------------------+----+---------------+------------+---+ >>> >>> this is a big change for encapsulation, where prior to this encapsulation means sending to a single destination. >> >> Copying an available IPv4 address at a fixed place isn't IMHO a "big change". >> >>> if we also allow for a BR subnet prefix of /128 I'm OK with this (I think). >> >> I don't understand what you mean by "Subnet prefix of /128". >> >> >>>> Note that if double-translation CEs are notified to use U instead of V, the last octet becomes 0 per RFC 6052. >>> >>> how would a CE know if it was single or double translating? >> >> Presumably with a usual method, e.g. DHCPv6. >> Anything problematic with that? >> >> >>> e.g we could do: >>> >>> <--------- 64 ------------><--- 24 ------><----- 32 -------><--8 > >>> +-------------+--------+---+--------------------+------+-----+---+ >>> | IPv6 prefix |CE index| S | 00-00-5E | IPv4 address | PSID | >>> +-------------+--------+---+---+----------------+------+-----+---+ >>> >>> we also need to handle the case where IPv6 prefix + CE index > 64. >> >> Please explain more your understanding of this requirement. >> (I personally believe we should avoid that.) >> >>> I suggest we then just put as much as the interface identifier that will fit. >> >> >> May I suggest that, to be more constructive, you could first express your objections to the proposed unified mapping, rather than making a number of new proposals whose justifications are sometimes hard to understand, >> >> Cheers, >> RD >> >> >>> >>> cheers, >>> Ole >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
- [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Congxiao Bao
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Qiong
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Congxiao Bao
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Congxiao Bao
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … xiaohong deng
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Qiong
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Zhen Cao
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Zhen Cao
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … GangChen
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … liu dapeng
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Leaf yeh
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Qiong
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Qiong
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Qiong
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Leaf yeh
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Tetsuya Murakami
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Tetsuya Murakami
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Leaf yeh
- Re: [Softwires] Internal routing based on the V o… Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Internal routing based on the V o… Ole Troan
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Qiong
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Leaf yeh
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping … Rémi Després