Network Working Group X. Li Internet-Draft C. Bao Intended status: Experimental CERNET Center/Tsinghua Expires: March 6, 2014 University W. Dec, Ed. O. Troan Cisco Systems S. Matsushima SoftBank Telecom T. Murakami IP Infusion September 2, 2013 Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T) draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-04 Abstract This document specifies the "Mapping of Address and Port" double stateless IPv6-IPv4 Network Address Translation (NAT64) based solution, called MAP-T, for providing shared or non-shared IPv4 address connectivity to and across an IPv6 network. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Mapping Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Basic mapping rule (BMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Forwarding mapping rule (FMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3. Port mapping algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4. Default mapping rule (DMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.5. The IPv6 Interface Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. MAP-T Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1. MAP CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2. MAP BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. MAP-T Packet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.1. IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.2. IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.3. IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.4. IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. ICMP Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.1. Fragmentation in the MAP domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP domain borders . . . . 20 9.3. Sending IPv4 fragments to the outside . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. Usage Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.1. EA-bit length of 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.2. Mesh and Hub and spoke modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10.3. Communication with IPv6 servers in the MAP-T domain . . . 21 10.4. Compatibility with other NAT64 solutions . . . . . . . . . 21 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix A. Examples of MAP-T translation . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Appendix B. Port mapping algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 1. Introduction Experiences from IPv6 deployments in service provider networks such as [RFC6219] indicate that a successful transition to IPv6 can happen while allowing for continued support of IPv4 users, without the use of an full end-end dual stack network. Due to IPv4 address exhaustion, this requires an IPv6 network technology that supports shared IPv4 address usage, and also allows the network operator to optimize network equipment functionality and operational practices around IPv6. The use of double NAT64 translation based solutions is an optimal way to address these requirements, especially in combination with stateless translation techniques that minimize several operational challenges, as outlined in [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation]. The Mapping of Address and Port - Translation (MAP-T) solution specified in this document is a double NAT64 based solution, that builds on existing stateless NAT64 techniques specified in [RFC6145], along with a stateless algorithmic address & transport layer port mapping scheme, to allow the sharing of IPv4 addresses across an IPv6 network. The MAP-T solution is closely related to MAP-E [I-D.ietf-softwire-map], with both utilizing the same address and port mapping & indexing method, but differing in their choice of IPv6 domain transport, i.e. Translation [RFC6145] for MAP-T and encapsulation [RFC2473] for MAP-E. The translation mode is deemed valuable for environments where the encapsulation overhead, or IPv6 oriented practices (e.g. use of IPv6 only servers, or IPv6 traffic classification) requirements, contribute to an encapsulation based solution being not feasable. These scenarios are presented in [I-D.maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios] A companion document, applicable to both MAP-T and MAP-E, defines the DHCPv6 options for MAP provisioning [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]. 2. Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Terminology Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 MAP domain: One or more MAP CEs and BRs connected by means of an IPv6 network and sharing a common set of MAP Rules. A service provider may deploy a single MAP domain, or may utilize multiple MAP domains. MAP Rule: A set of parameters describing the mapping between an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address or shared IPv4 address and an IPv6 prefix or address. Each MAP domain uses a different mapping rule set. MAP Rule set: A Rule set is composed out of all the MAP Rules communicated to a device, that are intended for determining the devices' traffic forwarding operations. A set has at least one entry, known as a default map rule. The Rule set is interchangeably referred to in this document as a Rule table. MAP Rule table: See MAP Rule set. MAP node: A device that implements MAP. MAP Border Relay (BR): A MAP enabled router managed by the service provider at the edge of a MAP domain. A Border Relay router has at least an IPv6- enabled interface and an IPv4 interface connected to the native IPv4 network. A MAP BR may also be referred to simply as a "BR" within the context of MAP. MAP Customer Edge (CE): A device functioning as a Customer Edge router in a MAP deployment. A typical MAP CE adopting MAP rules will serve a residential site with one WAN side interface, and one or more LAN side interfaces. A MAP CE may also be referred to simply as a "CE" within the context of MAP. Port-set: Each node has a separate part of the transport layer port space; denoted as a port-set. Port-set ID (PSID): Algorithmically identifies a set of ports exclusively assigned to the CE. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Shared IPv4 address: An IPv4 address that is shared among multiple CEs. Only ports that belong to the assigned port-set can be used for communication. Also known as a Port-Restricted IPv4 address. 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. MAP IPv6 address: The IPv6 address used to reach the MAP function of a CE from other CEs and from BRs. Rule IPv6 prefix: An IPv6 prefix assigned by a Service Provider for a MAP rule. Rule IPv4 prefix: An IPv4 prefix assigned by a Service Provider for a MAP rule. Embedded Address (EA) bits: The IPv4 EA-bits in the IPv6 address identify an IPv4 prefix/address (or part thereof) or a shared IPv4 address (or part thereof) and a port-set identifier. 4. Architecture Figure 1 depicts the overall MAP-T architecture, which sees any number of IPv4 users (N and M used as examples), connected by means of MAP-T CEs to an IPv6 network that is equipped with one or more MAP-T BR. The CEs and BRs form the MAP-T Domain, by means of configuration that they share. Functionally the MAP-T CE and BR utilize and extend some well established technical building blocks to allow the IPv4 users to correspond with nodes on the Public IPv4 network, or IPv6 network as follows: o A regular (NAT44) NAPT [RFC2663] function on a MAP CE is extended with support for restricting the allowable TCP/UDP ports for a given IPv4 address. The IPv4 address and port range used are determined by the MAP provisioning process and identical to MAP-E [I-D.ietf-softwire-map]. o A standard stateless NAT64 function [RFC6145] is extended to allow stateless mapping of IPv4 and transport layer port ranges to IPv6 address space. This algorithmic mapping is specified in section Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 5. User N Private IPv4 | Network | O--+---------------O | | MAP-T CE | | +-----+--------+ | | NAPT44| MAP-T | | | +-----+ | | -._ ,-------. .------. | +--------+ | ,-' `-. ,-' `-. O------------------O / \ O---------O / Public \ / IPv6 only \ | MAP-T |/ IPv4 \ ( Network --+ Border +- Network ) \ / | Relay |\ / O------------------O \ / O---------O \ / | MAP-T CE | ;". ,-' `-. ,-' | +-----+--------+ | ," `----+--' ------' | NAPT44| MAP-T | |, | | +-----+ | | IPv6 node(s) | | +--------+ | (w/ v4 mapped O---.--------------O address) | User M Private IPv4 Network Figure 1: MAP-T Architecture Each MAP-T CE is configured by means of MAP procedures with an IPv4 address and a port-range that is indexed by means of a Port Set Identifier (PSID). Each CE is responsible for translating between a given users' private IPv4 address space and the CE's MAP derived IPv4 address + port set, as well as adapting traffic between IPv4 and IPv6 using NAT64 procedures that are in accordance with the MAP Rules applicable for a given domain. The MAP procedures can operate with CE's using a shared IPv4 address, full IPv4 addresses or IPv4 prefixes, and place no assumption on the IPv6 addressing, other than an IPv6 prefix of adequate size being allocated. The MAP-T BR is responsible for connecting one or more MAP-T domains to external IPv4 networks, using stateless NAT64 as extended by the MAP rules in this document, to relay traffic between the two. The intended role for NAT64 technology in the architecture is two fold. Firstly, it is intended to allow the IPv6 network to focus on IPv6 operational procedures with minimal consideration of IPv4-only Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 nodes attached to the domain. Secondly, it is intended to allow IPv4-only nodes to correspond directly with IPv6-only nodes, provided they have an IPv4 mapped IPv6 address belonging to the IPv6 prefix assigned to the MAP-T domain (as per [RFC6052]). The detailed operation of the above mechanism is governed by means of MAP Rules and an address+port mapping algorithm covered in Section 5. Section 7 describes how the mechanism is used for packet forwarding operations. 5. Mapping Rules A MAP node is provisioned with one or more mapping rules that govern the IPv4 address and port-set are to a node in the IPv6 domain, as well specific or default path forwarding behavior for the domain. Three specific types of mapping rules are defined: 1. Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) - used for determining the CE's IPv4 address and/or port set, as well as determining the MAP IPv6 address that the CE is to use. For a given end-user IPv6 prefix there can be only one BMR. The BMR is defined out of the following parameters: * Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length) * Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length) * Rule EA-bits length (in bits) * Optional Rule Port Parameters 2. Forwarding Mapping Rule (FMR) - used for setting up forwarding between CEs in the MAP domain (a.k.a. Mesh mode). Each Forwarding Mapping Rule will result in a forwarding entry for the Rule IPv4 prefix + the given port range, i.e. Specific IPv4 + port routes.The FMR consists of the following parameters, which are shared with the BMR: * Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length) * Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length) * Rule EA-bits length (in bits) * Optional Rule Port Parameters Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 3. Default Mapping Rule (DMR) - used for mapping and forwarding to destinations outside the MAP domain, i.e. a default route for the MAP domain leading to the MAP BR. It consists of: * The IPv6 prefix (including prefix length) used to represent destinations outside the MAP domain. Typically a routed prefix to one or more BRs. 4. Optional Rule Port Parameters - used to represent additional configuration settings. Currently defined parameters are * Offset: Specifies the numeric value for the MAP algorithm's excluded port range/offset bits (A-bits). Unless explicitly defined this value MUST default to 6. By default, every MAP node belonging to a MAP domain node, MUST be provisioned with a Basic Mapping Rule (BMR). The rule is then used for IPv4 prefix, address or shared address assignment. A MAP IPv6 address is formed from the BMR Rule IPv6 prefix. This address MUST be assigned to an interface of the MAP node and is used to terminate all MAP traffic being sent or received to the node. Port-aware IPv4 entries in the Rules table are installed for all the Forwarding Mapping Rules and a default route to the MAP BR as per the DMR (see section Section 5.3). A given domain can have only one DMR, however be deployed for load balancing using multiple BRs, for example by means of anycast addressing of the BRs. Forwarding rules are used to allow direct communication between MAP CEs, known as mesh mode. In hub and spoke mode, there are no forwarding rules, and all traffic is forwarded from the CE to the BR by means of the DMR. The following subsections specify the MAP algorithm and its use of Rules. 5.1. Basic mapping rule (BMR) The Basic Mapping Rule is used to derive a CE's IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address and any associated port-set-id, which are related to the MAP domain represented by an IPv6 prefix. Recall from Section 5 that the BMR consists of the following parameters: o Rule IPv6 prefix, of a length n. o Rule IPv4 prefix, of a length r. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 o Rule EA-bits of length o. o Optional Rule Port Parameters (a, k) Figure 2 shows the structure of the complete MAP IPv6 address of a CE as specified in this document, and its relation to the information contained in the BMR and End-user IP6 prefix. The MAP CE IPv6 address is determined by concatenating the End-user IPv6 prefix with the MAP subnet-id (if the End-user IPv6 prefix is shorter than 64 bits) and the MAP interface ID. The MAP interface-id is derived as specified in Section 5.5. The MAP subnet ID is defined to be the first subnet (all bits set to zero). For End-user IPv6 prefixes longer than 64 bits, no MAP subnet id is used. | n bits | o bits | s bits | 128-n-o-s bits | +--------------------+-----------+---------+------------+----------+ | Rule IPv6 prefix | EA bits |subnet ID| interface ID | +--------------------+-----------+---------+-----------------------+ |<--- End-user IPv6 prefix --->| Figure 2: IPv6 address format The MAP CE's IPv4 address is determined by completing the r-bits of the Rule IPv4 prefix with the remaining IPv4 suffix 32-r bits of information (p), along with the optional k bits of the Port Set Identifier (PSID). These remaining p + k bits of information themselves come from the (o) Embedded-Address (EA) bits of the end- user IPv6 prefix. The End-user IPv6 prefix is the IPv6 prefix assigned to the CE and is unique per CE. The n bit Rule IPv6 prefix, is the part of the End-user IPv6 prefix that is common among all CEs using the same Basic Mapping Rule within the MAP domain. Similarly, the Rule IPv4 prefix of length r is the IPv4 prefix common among all CEs using the same BMR within the MAP domain. An EA-bit length of 0 signifies that all relevant p and k bits of addressing information are passed directly in the BMR, and not derived from the EA bits of the End-user IPv6 prefix. Examples of these and other cases are given in Appendix A. For a given BMR, if o + r < 32 (length of the IPv4 address in bits), then an IPv4 prefix is being intended for use by the BMR. This case is shown in Figure 3. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 | r bits | 32-r bits | +-------------+---------------------+ | Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix | +-------------+---------------------+ | < 32 bits | Figure 3: IPv4 prefix If o + r is equal to 32, then a full IPv4 address is to be assigned. The address is created by concatenating the Rule IPv4 prefix and the EA-bits. This case is shown in Figure 4. | r bits | 32-r bits | +-------------+---------------------+ | Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix | +-------------+---------------------+ | 32 bits | Figure 4: Complete IPv4 address If o + r is > 32, then a shared IPv4 address is to be assigned, and is the case shown in Figure 5. The number of IPv4 address suffix bits (p) in the EA bits is given by 32 - r. The PSID bits are used to create a port-set. The length of the PSID bit field within EA bits is: k = o - 32 + r. | r bits | 32-r bits | | k bits | +-------------+---------------------+ +------------+ | Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix | |Port-Set ID | +-------------+---------------------+ +------------+ | 32 bits | Figure 5: Shared IPv4 address It should be noted that the length r MAY be zero, in which case the complete IPv4 address or prefix is encoded in the EA bits. Similarly the length of o MAY, in which case no part of the CE's IPv6 end-user prefix is used to derive the CE's IPv4 address. To create a complete IPv4 address (or prefix), the IPv4 address suffix (p = 32-r) from the EA bits, is concatenated with the Rule IPv4 prefix (r bits). The BMR is provisioned to the CE by means (e.g. a DHCPv6 option) not Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 11] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 specified in this document. See Appendix A for an example of the Basic Mapping Rule. 5.2. Forwarding mapping rule (FMR) The Forwarding Mapping Rule is an optional rule used in mesh mode to enable direct CE to CE connectivity. The processing of an FMR rule results in a route entry being installed on the processing MAP device for the IPv4 Rule prefix and any associated port range. The "next hop" of such a route is the MAP transformation defined by the rule's key elements: o The Rule IPv6 prefix, of a length n. o The Rule IPv4 prefix, of a length r. o The Rule EA-bits of length o. o Optional Rule Port Parameters (e.g. offset, port set id) On forwarding an IPv4 packet, a best matching prefix look up is done and the closest matching FMR is chosen. The IPv6 destination address is derived from the destination IPv4 + port in combination with the rule's parameters as exemplified in Figure 6. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 12] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 | 32 bits | | 16 bits | +--------------------------+ +-------------------+ | IPv4 destination address | | IPv4 dest port | +--------------------------+ +-------------------+ : : ___/ : | r bits |32-r bits | / k bits : +---------------+----------+ +------------+ | Rule IPv4 |IPv4 sufx| |Port-Set ID | +---------------+----------+ +------------+ \ / ____/ ________/ \ : __/ _____/ \ : / / | n bits | o bits | s bits | 128-n-o-s bits | +--------------------+-----------+---------+------------+----------+ | Rule IPv6 prefix | EA bits |subnet ID| interface ID | +--------------------+-----------+---------+-----------------------+ |<--- End-user IPv6 prefix --->| Figure 6: Deriving of MAP IPv6 address See Appendix A for an example of the Forwarding Mapping Rule. 5.3. Port mapping algorithm The port mapping algorithm is used in domains whose MAP Rules allows IPv4 address sharing, and is intended to allow the a range of ports to be represented by an algorithmically computable index, the Port Set Identifier (PSID) that is unique for each CE. The simplest way to represent a port range is using a notation similar to CIDR [RFC4632]. For example the first 256 ports are represented as port prefix 0.0/8. The last 256 ports as 255.0/8. In hexadecimal, 0x0000/8 (PSID = 0) and 0xFF00/8 (PSID = 0xFF). Using this technique, but wishing to avoid allocating the system ports [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports] to a give CE, one would have to exclude the use of one or more PSIDs. As will be seen shortly, the PSID forms a portion of the End-user IPv6 prefix, however it is desirable to minimize the dependencies between the End-user IPv6 prefix and the assigned port set. This is achieved by using an infix representation of the port value. Using such a representation, the well-known ports are excluded by restrictions on the value of the first A high-order bits of the transport port space, known as the A-bit field, rather than the PSID itself, whihc directly follows. For a given A-bit field value, and a given PSID, the range of contiguous ports being represented are all the combinations of the remaining m wildcard bits (i.e. 2^m Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 13] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 combinations) out of the 16-bit field, as shown in the figure below. 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 +-------+-----------+-----------+ Ports in | A | PSID | M | the CE port set | > 0 | | any value | +-------+-----------+-----------+ |a bits | k bits | m bits | Figure 7: PSID A Selects the range of the port number. For a > 0, A MUST be larger than 0. This ensures that the algorithm excludes the system ports. For this value of a, the system ports, but no others, are excluded by requiring that A be greater than 0. For smaller values of a, A still has to be greater than 0, but this excludes ports above 1023. For larger values of a, the minimum value of A has to be higher to exclude all the system ports. The interval between successive contiguous ranges assigned to the same user is 2^a. a-bits The number of offset bits. The default Offset bits (a) are: 6. To simplify the port mapping algorithm the defaults are chosen so that the PSID field starts on a nibble boundary and the excluded port range (0-1023) is extended to 0-4095. PSID The Port Set Identifier. Different Port-Set Identifiers (PSID) MUST have non-overlapping port-sets. k-bits The length in bits of the PSID field. The sharing ratio is 2^k. The number of ports assigned to the user is 2^(16-k) - 2^m (excluded ports) M Selects the specific port within the particular range specified by the concatenation of A and the PSID. m bits The contiguous port size, i.e. the number of contiguous ports allocated to a given PSID. The number of contiguous ports is given by 2^m. 5.4. Default mapping rule (DMR) IPv4 traffic between MAP-T nodes that are all within one MAP domain is translated to IPv6, with the senders MAP IPv6 address as the IPv6 source address and the receiving MAP node's MAP IPv6 address as the IPv6 destination address. To reach destinations outside the MAP-T Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 14] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 domain and/or for the case when the MAP domain is defined to be composed out of a single CE and BR, the Default Mapping rule is used. The DMR is specified in terms of the BR IPv6 prefix that MAP-T CEs will use for mapping an IPv4 destination address. Default Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0001::/Prefix-length (Rule IPv6 prefix), 0.0.0.0/0 (Rule IPv4 prefix)} Example: Default Mapping Rule It is recommended that the BR prefix-length SHOULD be by default 64 bits long, and in any case MUST NOT exceed 96 bits. The mapping of the IPv4 destination behind the IPv6 prefix will by default follow the /64 rule as per [RFC6052]. Any trailing bits after the IPv4 address are set to 0x0. 5.5. The IPv6 Interface Identifier 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 | +--------+----------------+--------+ Figure 8 In the case of an IPv4 prefix, the IPv4 address field is right-padded with zeros up to 32 bits. The k-bit PSID is zero left-padded to create a 16 bit field. For an IPv4 prefix or a complete IPv4 address, the PSID field is zero. If the End-user IPv6 prefix length is larger than 64, the most significant parts of the interface identifier is overwritten by the prefix. 6. MAP-T Configuration For a given MAP domain, the BR and CE MUST be configured with the following MAP elements. The configured values for these elements are identical for all CEs and BRs within a given MAP domain. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 15] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 o The Basic Mapping Rule and optionally the Forwarding Mapping Rules, including the Rule IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv4 prefix, and Length of EA bits o Hub and spoke mode or Mesh mode. (If all traffic should be sent to the BR, or if direct CE to CE traffic should be supported). o Use of Translation mode (MAP-T) o The BR's IPv6 prefix used in the DMR The MAP-T CE and BR configuration is the same as for MAP-E described in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] except for two differences: o Translation mode is used instead of Encapsulation o Use of the BR's IPv6 prefix instead of address 6.1. MAP CE The MAP elements are set to values that are the same across all CEs within a MAP domain. The values may be configured in a variety of manners, including provisioning methods such as the Broadband Forum's "TR-69" Residential Gateway management interface, an XML-based object retrieved after IPv6 connectivity is established, DHCPv6, or manual configuration by an administrator. This document does not prescribe any of these methods, but recommends that a MAP CE SHOULD implement DHCPv6 options as per [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]. Other configuration and management methods may use the format described by this option for consistency and convenience of implementation on CEs that support multiple configuration methods. The only remaining provisioning information the CE requires in order to calculate the MAP IPv4 address and enable IPv4 connectivity is the IPv6 prefix for the CE. The End-user IPv6 prefix is configured as part of obtaining IPv6 Internet access, and requires no special handling. The MAP provisioning parameters, and hence the IPv4 service itself, is tied to the End-user IPv6 prefix; thus, the MAP service is also tied to this in terms of authorization, accounting, etc. The MAP IPv4 address, prefix or shared IPv4 address and port set has the same lifetime as its associated End-user IPv6 prefix. A single MAP CE MAY be connected to more than one MAP domain, just as any router may have more than one IPv4-enabled service provider facing interface and more than one set of associated addresses assigned by DHCPv6. Each domain a given CE operates within would Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 16] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 require its own set of MAP configuration elements and would generate its own IPv4 address. The MAP DHCPv6 option is specified in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp] 6.2. MAP BR The MAP BR MUST be configured with the same MAP elements as the MAP CEs operating within the same domain. For increased reliability and load balancing, the BR IPv6 prefix MAY be shared across a given MAP domain. As MAP is stateless, any BR may be used at any time. Since MAP uses provider address space, no specific routes need to be advertised externally for MAP to operate, neither in IPv6 nor IPv4 BGP. However, the BR prefix needs to be advertised in the service provider's IGP. 7. MAP-T Packet Forwarding The end-end packet flow in MAP-T involves an IPv4 or IPv6 packet being forwarded across one or both of a CE and a BR, in one of two directions in for each such case. 7.1. IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE A MAP-T CE receiving IPv4 packets SHOULD perform NAPT NAT44 function, and create any necessary NAPT44 bindings. The source address and port of the packet obtained as a result of the NAPT44 process MUST correspond to the source IPv4 address and source transport port number derived to belong to the CE by means of the MAP Basic Mapping Rule (BMR). The resulting IPv4 packet is subject to a longest IPv4 address + port match MAP rule selection, which then determines the parameters for the subsequent NAT64 operation. By default, all traffic is matched to the default mapping rule (DMR), and subject to the stateless NAT64 operation using the DMR parameters for the MAP algorithm and NAT64. Packets matching destinations covered by any (optional) forward mapping rules (FMRs) are subject to the stateless NAT64 operation using the FMR parameters for the MAP algorithm and stateless NAT64. A MAP-T CE MUST support a default mapping rule and SHOULD support one or more forward mapping rules. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 17] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 7.2. IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE A MAP-T CE receiving an IPv6 packet performs its regular IPv6 operations (filtering, pre-routing, etc). Only packets that are addressed to the CE's MAP-T addresses, and with source addresses matching the IPv6 map-rule prefixes of a DMR or FMR, are processed by the MAP-T CE. All other IPv6 traffic SHOULD be forwarded as per the CE's IPv6 routing rules. The CE SHOULD check that MAP-T received packets' destination transport-layer destination port number is in the range allowed for by the CE's MAP BMR configuration. The CE SHOULD drop any non conforming packet and respond with an ICMPv6 "Address Unreachable" (Type 1, Code 3). For packets whose source address matches an FMR, the CE SHOULD perform a check of consistency of the source against the allowed values from the source port-range. If the packets' source port number is found to be outside the range allowed, the CE MUST drop the packet and SHOULD respond with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, Source address failed ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5). For each MAP-T processed packet, the CE's NAT64 function MUST derive the IPv4 source and destination addresses. The IPv4 destination address is derived by extracting relevant information from the IPv6 destination and the information stored in the BMR as per Section 5.1 of this document. The IPv4 source address is formed by classifying the packet's source as matching a DMR or FMR rule prefix, and then using that NAT64 rule-set, as per Section 5.4 or Section 5.2 respectively. The resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE's NAPT NAT44 function, where the destination IPv4 address and port number MUST be mapped to their original value, before being forwarded according to the CE's regular IPv4 rules. When the NAPT function is not enabled, the traffic from the stateless NAT64 function is directly forwarded according to the CE's IPv4 rules. 7.3. IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR A MAP-T BR receiving IPv6 packets MUST select a matching MAP rule based on a longest address match of the packets' source address against the BR's configured MAP Rules. In combination with the port- set-id contained in the packet's source IPv6 address, the selected MAP rule allows the BR to verify that the CE is using its allowed address and port range. Thus, the BR MUST perform a validation of the consistency of the source against the allowed values from the identified port-range. If the packets' source port number is found to be outside the range allowed, the BR MUST drop the packet and respond with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, Source address failed ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5). Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 18] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 When constructing the IPv4 packet, the BR MUST derive the source and destination IPv4 addresses as per Section 5 of this document and translate the IPv6 to IPv4 headers as per [RFC6145]. The resulting IPv4 packets are then passed to regular IPv4 forwarding. 7.4. IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR A MAP-T BR receiving IPv4 packets uses a longest match IPv4 + transport layer port lookup to identify the target MAP-T domain and rule. The MAP-T BR MUST then compute the IPv6 destination addresses from the IPv4 destination address and port as per Section 5.1 of this document. The MAP-T BR MUST also compute the IPv6 source addresses from the IPv4 source address as per Section 5.4 (i.e. It needs to form an IPv6 mapped IPv4 address using the BR's DMR prefix). Throughout the generic IPv4 to IPv6 header procedures following [RFC6145] apply. The resulting IPv6 packets are then passed to regular IPv6 forwarding. Note that the operation of a BR when forwarding to MAP-T domains that are defined without IPv4 address sharing is the same as stateless NAT64 IPv4/IPv6 translation. 8. ICMP Handling ICMP messages supported in the MAP-T domain need to take into consideration also the NAPT44 component and best current practice documented in [RFC5508] along with some additional specific considerations. MAP-T CEs and BRs MUST follow ICMP/ICMPv6 translation as per [RFC6145], with the following extension to cover the address sharing/ port-range feature. Unlike TCP and UDP, which provide two transport protocol port fields to represent both source and destination, the ICMP/ICMPv6 [RFC0792], [RFC4443] Query message header has only one ID field which needs to be used to identify a sending IPv4 host. When receiving IPv4 ICMP messages, the MAP-T CE MUST rewrite the ID field to a port value derived from the CE's Port-set-id. In the return path, when MAP-T BR receives an IPv4 ICMP packet containing an ID field which is bound for a shared address in the MAP-T domain, the MAP-T BR SHOULD use the ID value as a substitute for the destination port in determining the IPv6 destination address. In all other cases, the MAP-T BR MUST derive the destination IPv6 address by simply mapping the destination IPv4 address without Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 19] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 additional port info. Throughout the ICMP message MUST be translated as per [RFC6145] with the the ID field preserved. 9. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery Due to the different sizes of the IPv4 and IPv6 header, handling the maximum packet size is relevant for the operation of any system connecting the two address families. There are three mechanisms to handle this issue: Path MTU discovery (PMTUD), fragmentation, and transport-layer negotiation such as the TCP Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option [RFC0897]. MAP uses all three mechanisms to deal with different cases. 9.1. Fragmentation in the MAP domain Translating an IPv4 packet to carry it across the MAP domain will increase its size by 20 bytes respectively. It is strongly recommended that the MTU in the MAP domain is well managed and that the IPv6 MTU on the CE WAN side interface is set so that no fragmentation occurs within the boundary of the MAP domain. Fragmentation in MAP-T domain is to be handled as described in section 4 and 5 of [RFC6145]. 9.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP domain borders Forwarding of an IPv4 packet received from the outside of the MAP domain requires the IPv4 destination address and the transport protocol destination port. The transport protocol information is only available in the first fragment received. As described in section 5.3.3 of [RFC6346] a MAP node receiving an IPv4 fragmented packet from outside has to reassemble the packet before sending the packet onto the MAP link. If the first packet received contains the transport protocol information, it is possible to optimize this behavior by using a cache and forwarding the fragments unchanged. A description of this algorithm is outside the scope of this document. 9.3. Sending IPv4 fragments to the outside If two IPv4 host behind two different MAP CE's with the same IPv4 address sends fragments to an IPv4 destination host outside the domain. Those hosts may use the same IPv4 fragmentation identifier, resulting in incorrect reassembly of the fragments at the destination host. Given that the IPv4 fragmentation identifier is a 16 bit field, it could be used similarly to port ranges. A MAP CE SHOULD rewrite the IPv4 fragmentation identifier to be within its allocated port set. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 20] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 10. Usage Considerations 10.1. EA-bit length of 0 The MAP solution supports use and configuration of domains with a BMR expressing an EA-bit length of 0. This results in independence between the end-user IPv6 prefix assigned to the CE and the IPv4 address and/or port-range used by MAP. The k-bits of PSID information may in this case be derived from the BMR. The constraint imposed is that each such MAP domain be composed of just 1 MAP CE which has a predetermined IPv6 prefix. The BR would be configured with an FRM rule per CPE, where the FMR would uniquely describe the IPv6 prefix of a given CE. Each CE would have a distinct BMR, that would fully describe that CE's IPv4 address, and PSID if any. 10.2. Mesh and Hub and spoke modes The hub and spoke mode of communication, whereby all traffic sent by a MAP-T CE is forwarded via a BR, and the mesh mode, whereby a CE is directly able to forward traffic to another CE, are governed by the activation of Forward Mapping Rule that cover the IPv4-prefix destination, and port-index range. By default, a MAP CE configured only with a BMR, as per this specification, will use it to configure its IPv4 parameters and IPv6 MAP address without enabling mesh mode. 10.3. Communication with IPv6 servers in the MAP-T domain By default, MAP-T allows communication between both IPv4-only and any IPv6 enabled devices, as well as with native IPv6-only servers provided that the servers are configured with an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. This address could be part of the the IPv6 prefix used by the DMR in the MAP-T domain. Such IPv6 servers (e.g. an HTTP server, or a web content cache device) are thus able to serve both IPv6 users as well as IPv4-only users users alike utilizing IPv6. Any such IPv6-only servers SHOULD have both A and AAAA records in DNS. DNS64 [RFC6147] become required only when IPv6 servers in the MAP-T domain are expected themselves to initiate communication to external IPv4- only hosts. 10.4. Compatibility with other NAT64 solutions A MAP-T CE is by default compatible with [RFC6146] stateful NAT64 devices that are placed to use/advertise the BR prefix. This in effect allows the use of MAP-T CEs in environments that need to perform statistical multiplexing of IPv4 addresses, while utilizing stateful NAT64 devices, and can take the role of a CLAT as defined in Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 21] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 [RFC6877]. Furthermore, a MAP-T CE configured to operate without address sharing (no PSID) is compatible with any stateless NAT64 devices positioned as BRs. 11. IANA Considerations This specification does not require any IANA actions. 12. Security Considerations Spoofing attacks: With consistency checks between IPv4 and IPv6 sources that are performed on IPv4/IPv6 packets received by MAP nodes, MAP does not introduce any new opportunity for spoofing attacks that would not already exist in IPv6. Denial-of-service attacks: In MAP domains where IPv4 addresses are shared, the fact that IPv4 datagram reassembly may be necessary introduces an opportunity for DOS attacks. This is inherent to address sharing, and is common with other address sharing approaches such as DS-Lite and NAT64/DNS64. The best protection against such attacks is to accelerate IPv6 enablement in both clients and servers so that, where MAP is supported, it is less and less used. Routing-loop attacks: This attack may exist in some automatic tunneling scenarios are documented in [RFC6324]. 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. Attacks facilitated by restricted port set: From hosts that are not subject to ingress filtering of [RFC2827], some attacks are possible by an attacker injecting spoofed packets during ongoing transport connections ([RFC4953], [RFC5961], [RFC6056]. The attacks depend on guessing which ports are currently used by target hosts, and using an unrestricted port set is preferable, i.e. Using native IPv6 connections that are not subject to MAP port range restrictions. To minimize this type of attacks when using a restricted port set, the MAP CE's NAT44 filtering behavior SHOULD be "Address-Dependent Filtering". Furthermore, the MAP CEs SHOULD use a DNS transport proxy function to handle DNS traffic, and source such traffic from IPv6 interfaces not assigned to MAP-T. Practicalities of these methods are discussed in Section 5.9 of [I-D.dec-stateless-4v6]. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 22] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 ICMP Flood Given the necessity to process and translate ICMP and ICMPv6 messages by the BR and CE nodes, a foreseeable attack vector is that of a flood of such messages leading to a saturation of the nodes' compute resources. This attack vector is not specific to MAP, and its mitigation lies a combination of policing the rate of ICMP messages, policing the rate at which such messages can get processed by the MAP nodes, and of course identifying and blocking off the source(s) of such traffic. [RFC6269] outlines general issues with IPv4 address sharing. 13. Contributors The following individuals authored major contribution to this document: Chongfeng Xie (China Telecom) Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street Beijing 100035 CN Phone: +86-10-58552116 Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn Qiong Sun (China Telecom) Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street Beijing 100035 CN Phone: +86-10-58552936 Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn Rajiv Asati (Cisco Systems) 7025-6 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park NC 27709 USA Email: rajiva@cisco.com Gang Chen (China Mobile) 53A,Xibianmennei Ave. Beijing 100053 P.R.China Email: chengang@chinamobile.com Wentao Shang (CERNET Center/Tsinghua University) Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 CN Email: wentaoshang@gmail.com Guoliang Han (CERNET Center/Tsinghua University) Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 CN Email: bupthgl@gmail.com Yu Zhai CERNET Center/Tsinghua University Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 CN Email: jacky.zhai@gmail.com 14. Acknowledgements This document is based on the ideas of many. In particular Remi Despres, who has tirelessly worked on generalized mechanisms for stateless address mapping. The authors would like to thank Mohamed Boucadair, Guillaume Gottard, Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 23] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Dan Wing, Jan Zorz, Necj Scoberne, Tina Tsou, , Gang Chen, Maoke Chen, Xiaohong Deng, Jouni Korhonen, Tomasz Mrugalski, Jacni Qin, Chunfa Sun, Qiong Sun, Leaf Yeh, Andrew Yourtchenko for their review and comments. 15. References 15.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, October 2010. [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. [RFC6346] Bush, R., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346, August 2011. 15.2. Informative References [I-D.dec-stateless-4v6] Dec, W., Asati, R., and H. Deng, "Stateless 4Via6 Address Sharing", draft-dec-stateless-4v6-04 (work in progress), October 2011. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] Troan, O., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S., Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, "Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP)", draft-ietf-softwire-map-08 (work in progress), August 2013. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp] Mrugalski, T., Deng, X., Troan, O., Bao, C., Dec, W., and l. leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com, "DHCPv6 Options for configuration of Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients", draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-04 (work in progress), July 2013. [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation] Boucadair, M., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O., Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions", draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05 (work in Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 24] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 progress), November 2012. [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10 (work in progress), February 2011. [I-D.maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios] Maglione, R., Dec, W., Kuarsingh, V., and E. Mallette, "Use cases for MAP-T", draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-02 (work in progress), June 2013. [I-D.xli-behave-divi] Bao, C., Li, X., Zhai, Y., and W. Shang, "dIVI: Dual- Stateless IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-xli-behave-divi-05 (work in progress), June 2013. [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, September 1981. [RFC0897] Postel, J., "Domain name system implementation schedule", RFC 897, February 1984. [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. [RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, August 1999. [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000. [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003. [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. [RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 25] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006. [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. [RFC4953] Touch, J., "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks", RFC 4953, July 2007. [RFC5508] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508, April 2009. [RFC5961] Ramaiah, A., Stewart, R., and M. Dalal, "Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks", RFC 5961, August 2010. [RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport- Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056, January 2011. [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, April 2011. [RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, May 2011. [RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269, June 2011. [RFC6324] Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack Using IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed Mitigations", RFC 6324, August 2011. [RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", RFC 6877, April 2013. Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 26] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Appendix A. Examples of MAP-T translation Example 1 - Basic Mapping Rule: Given the following MAP domain information and IPv6 end-user prefix assigned to a MAP CE: IPv6 prefix assigned to the end-user: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0000::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix), 192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 16 (Rule EA-bits length)} PSID length: (16 - (32 - 24) = 8. (Sharing ratio of 256) PSID offset: 6 (default) A MAP node (CE or BR) can via the BMR, or equivalent FMR, determine the IPv4 address and port-set as shown below: EA bits offset: 40 IPv4 suffix bits (p) Length of IPv4 address (32) - IPv4 prefix length (24) = 8 IPv4 address 192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212) PSID start: 40 + p = 40 + 8 = 48 PSID length (q): o - p = (End-user prefix len - rule IPv6 prefix len) - p = (56 - 40) - 8 = 8 PSID: 0x34 Available ports (63 ranges) : 1232-1235, 2256-2259, ...... , 63696-63699, 64720-64723 The BMR information allows a MAP CE to determine (complete) its IPv6 address within the indicated end-user IPv6 prefix. IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034 Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 27] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Example 2 - BR: Another example can be made of a MAP-T BR, configured with the following FMR when receiving a packet with the following characteristics: IPv4 source address: 1.2.3.4 (0x01020304) TCP source port: 80 IPv4 destination address: 192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212) TCP destination port: 1232 Configured Forwarding Mapping Rule: {2001:db8::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix), 192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 16 (Rule EA-bits length)} MAP-T BR Prefix (DMR) 2001:db8:ffff::/64 The above information allows the BR to derive as follows the mapped destination IPv6 address for the corresponding MAP-T CE, and also the source IPv6 address for the mapped IPv4 source address. IPv4 suffix bits (p) 32 - 24 = 8 (18 (0x12)) PSID length: 8 PSID: 0x34 (1232) The resulting IPv6 packet will have the following header fields: IPv6 source address 2001:db8:ffff:0:0001:0203:0400:: IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034 TCP source Port: 80 TCP destination Port: 1232 Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 28] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Example 3- FMR: An IPv4 host behind a MAP-T CE (configured as per the previous examples) corresponding with an IPv4 host 1.2.3.4 will have its packets converted into IPv6 using the DMR configured on the MAP-T CE as follows: Default Mapping Rule used by MAP-T CE: {2001:db8:ffff::/64 (Rule IPv6 prefix), 0.0.0.0/0 (Rule IPv4 prefix), null (BR IPv4 address)} IPv4 source address (post NAT44 if present) 192.0.2.18 IPv4 destination address: 1.2.3.4 IPv4 source port (post NAT44 if present): 1232 IPv4 destination port: 80 IPv6 source address of MAP-T CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034 IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:ffff:0:0001:0203:0400:: Example 4 - Rule with no embedded address bits and no address sharing End-user IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix), 192.0.2.1/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 0 (Rule EA-bits length)} PSID length: 0 (Sharing ratio is 1) PSID offset: n/a A MAP node can via the BMR or equivalent FMR, determine the IPv4 address and port-set as shown below: EA bits offset: 0 IPv4 suffix bits (p) Length of IPv4 address - IPv4 prefix length = 32 - 32 = 0 IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 (0xc0000201) PSID start: 0 PSID length: 0 PSID: null The BMR information allows a MAP CE also to determine (complete) its full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP interface identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address). IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0201:0000 Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 29] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Example 5 - Rule with no embedded address bits and address sharing (sharing ratio 256) End-user IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix), 192.0.2.1/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 0 (Rule EA-bits length)} PSID length: (16 - (32 - 24)) = 8. (Provisioned with DHCPv6. Sharing ratio of 256.). PSID offset: 6 (default) PSID: 0x20 (Provisioned with DHCPv6) A MAP node can via the BMR determine the IPv4 address and port-set as shown below: EA bits offset: 0 IPv4 suffix bits (p): Length of IPv4 address - IPv4 prefix length = 32 -32 = 0 IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 (0xc0000201) PSID start: 0 PSID length: 8 PSID: 0x20 Available ports (63 ranges) : 1536-1551, 2560-2575, ...... , 64000-64015, 65024-65039 The BMR information allows a MAP CE also to determine (complete) its full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP interface identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address and PSID). IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034 Note that the IPv4 address and PSID is not derived from the IPv6 prefix assigned to the CE, but provisioned separately using for example MAP options in DHCPv6. Appendix B. Port mapping algorithm The driving principles and the mathematical expression of the mapping algorithm used by MAP can be found in Appendix B of [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 30] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Authors' Addresses Xing Li CERNET Center/Tsinghua University Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 CN Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn Congxiao Bao CERNET Center/Tsinghua University Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 CN Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn Wojciech Dec (editor) Cisco Systems Haarlerbergpark Haarlerbergweg 13-19 Amsterdam, NOORD-HOLLAND 1101 CH Netherlands Phone: Email: wdec@cisco.com Ole Troan Cisco Systems Oslo Norway Email: ot@cisco.com Satoru Matsushima SoftBank Telecom 1-9-1 Higashi-Shinbashi, Munato-ku Tokyo Japan Email: satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 31] Internet-Draft MAP-T September 2013 Tetsuya Murakami IP Infusion 1188 East Arques Avenue Sunnyvale USA Email: tetsuya@ipinfusion.com Li, et al. Expires March 6, 2014 [Page 32]