Internet DRAFT - draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u
draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u
Internet Engineering Task Force R. Despres, Ed.
Internet-Draft RD-IPtech
Intended status: Standards Track R. Penno
Expires: September 29, 2012 Juniper Networks
Y. Lee
Comcast
G. Chen
China Mobile
J. Qin
March 28, 2012
IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - Unified Solution (4rd)
draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-06
Abstract
The 4rd automatic tunneling mechanism makes IPv4 Residual Deployment
possible via IPv6 networks without maintaining for this per-customer
states in 4rd-capable nodes (reverse of the IPv6 Rapid Deployment of
6rd). To cope with the IPv4 address shortage, customers can be
assigned IPv4 addresses with restricted port sets. In some
scenarios, 4rd-capable customer nodes can exchange packets of their
IPv4-only applications via stateful NAT64s that are upgraded to
support 4rd tunnels (in addition to their IP/ICMP translation of
RFC6145).
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 September 29, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The 4rd Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Mapping rules and other Domain parameters . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Tunnel-packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. From IPv6 Prefixes to 4rd IPv4 prefixes and port sets . . 10
4.4. From 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . 12
4.5. Fragmentation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5.1. Fragmentation at Domain Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5.2. Ports of Fragments addressed to Shared-Address CEs . . 16
4.5.3. Packet Identifications from Shared-Address CEs . . . . 18
4.6. TOS and Traffic-Class Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.7. Tunnel-Generated ICMPv6 Error Messages . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.8. Provisioning 4rd Parameters to CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Use-Case Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1. Textual representation of Mapping rules . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2. A pragmatic method to configure Mapping Rules . . . . . . 22
5.3. Adding Shared IPv4 Addresses to an IPv6 Network . . . . . 23
5.3.1. With CEs within CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3.2. With some CEs behind Third-party Router CPEs . . . . . 26
5.4. Replacing Dual-stack Routing by IPv6-only Routing . . . . 27
5.5. Adding IPv6 and 4rd Service to a Net-10 network . . . . . 28
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Relationship with Previous Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
1. Introduction
For deployments of residual IPv4 service via IPv6 networks, the need
for a stateless solution is expressed in
[I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation] (no per customer state
in IPv4-IPv6 gateway nodes of the provider). This document specifies
such a solution, named "4rd" for IPv4 Residual Deployment. With it,
IPv4 packets are transparently tunneled across IPv6 networks (reverse
of 6rd [RFC5969] in which IPv6 packets are statelessly tunneled
across IPv4 networks). While IPv6 headers are too long to be mapped
into IPv4 headers, so that 6rd requires encapsulation of full IPv6
packets in IPv4 packets, IPv4 headers can be reversibly mapped into
IPv6 headers so that 4rd tunnel packets can be designed to be valid
IPv6 packets, thus ensuring compatibility with IPv6-only middle boxes
that perform deep-packet-inspection.
In order to deal with the IPv4-address shortage, customers can be
assigned shared IPv4 addresses, with statically assigned restricted
port sets (a particular application of the A+P approach of
[RFC6346]).
The design of 4rd builds on a number of previous proposals made for
IPv4-via-IPv6 transition technologies listed in Section 9.
In some use cases, IPv4-only applications of 4rd-capable customer
nodes can also work with stateful NAT64s of [RFC6146], provided these
are upgraded to support 4rd tunnels in addition IP/ICMP translation
of [RFC6145], with the advantage of a more complete IPv4
transparency.
Terminology is defined in Section 2. How the 4rd model fits in the
Internet architecture is summarized in Section 3. The protocol
specification is detailed in Section 4. Section 5 illustrates a few
typical 4rd use cases. Section 6 and Section 7 respectively deal
with security and IANA considerations. Previous proposals that
influenced this specification are listed in Section 9.
The key words "MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
ISP: Internet-Service Provider. In this document, the service it
offers can be DSL, fiber-optics, cable, or mobile. The ISP can
also be a private-network operator.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
4rd (IPv4 Residual Deployment): An extension of the IPv4 service
where public-IPv4 addresses can be statically shared with
restricted port sets assigned to customers.
4rd domain (or Domain): An ISP-operated IPv6 network across which
4rd is supported according to the present specification.
Tunnel packet: An IPv6 packet that transparently conveys an IPv4
packet across a 4rd domain. Its header has enough information
to reconstitute the IPv4 header at Domain exit. Its payload is
the original IPv4 payload.
CE (Customer Edge): A customer-side tunnel endpoint function. It
can be in a node that is a host, a router, or both.
BR (Border Relay): An ISP-side tunnel-endpoint function. Because
its operation is stateless (neither per CE nor per session
state) it can be replicated in as many nodes as needed for
scalability.
4rd IPv6 address: IPv6 address used as destination of a Tunnel
packet sent to a CE or a BR.
NAT64+: An ISP NAT64 of [RFC6146] that is upgraded to support 4rd
tunneling when IPv6 addresses it deals with have the 4rd-IPv6-
address format.
4rd IPv4 address: A public IPv4 address or, in case of a shared IPv4
address, a public transport address (public IPv4 address plus
port number).
PSID (Port-Set Identifier): A flexible-length field that
algorithmically identifies a port set.
4rd IPv4 prefix: A flexible-length prefix that may be a a public
IPv4 prefix, a public IPv4 address, or a public IPv4 address
followed by a PSID.
Mapping rule: A set of parameters that BRs and CEs can use either to
derive a 4rd IPv6 address from a 4rd IPv4 address, or that CEs
can use to build an IPv6 address that will reach a NAT64+.
Mapping rules are also used by CEs to derive their own 4rd IPv4
prefixes from their delegated IPv6 prefixes.
EA bits (Embedded Address bits): Bits that are the same in a 4rd
IPv4 address and in the 4rd IPv6 address derived from it.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
BR mapping rule: The mapping rule applicable to off-domain IPv4
addresses reachable via BRs.
CE mapping rule: A mapping rule applicable to public IPv4 addresses,
shared or not, assigned to some CEs.
NAT64+ mapping rule: The mapping rule applicable to IPv4 addresses
reachable via a NAT64+.
CNP (Checksum Neutrality preserver): A field of 4rd IPv6 addresses
that ensures that TCP-like checksums do not change when IPv4
addresses are replaced by 4rd IPv6 addresses.
V octet: An octet whose value permits to distinguish 4rd IPv6
addresses from native IPv6 addresses.
3. The 4rd Model
4rd DOMAIN
+-----------------------------+
| IPv6 routing |
| Enforced ingress filtering | +----------
... | | |
| +------+
Customer site | IPv6 prefix --> |BR(s) | IPv4
+------------+ | |and/or| Internet
| dual-stack | | IPv6 prefix --> |N4T64+|
| +--+ | +------+
| |CE+-+ <-- IPv6 prefix | |
| +--+ | | +----------
| | | |
+------------+ | <--IPv4 tunnels--> +------------
| (Mesh or hub-and-spoke |
... | topologies) | IPv6
| | Internet
| |
| +------------
+-----------------------------+
<== one or several Mapping rules
(e.g. announced to CEs in stateless DHCPv6 )
Figure 1
How the 4rd model fits in the Internet architecture is represented in
Figure 1.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
One or several Mapping rules are announced to CEs so that they can
find, based on their delegated IPv6 prefixes, their assigned IPv4
address space. This space can be specified by a public IPv4 prefix,
a public IPv4 address, or a shared public IPv4 address with a
restricted port set. It can also be no IPv4 address if the ISP
operates a NAT64+.
R-1: A node whose CE is assigned a shared IPv4 address MUST include
a NAT44 [RFC1631]. This NAT44 MUST only use external ports
that are in the CE assigned port set.
NOTE 1: An ISP NAT64 that has per-session stateful operation can be
also upgraded to support 4rd Mapping rules. Thus, for each customer
whose delegated IPv6 prefix matches a CE or BR mapping rule, it can
have per-customer and per-session stateless operation even if this
customer's node is IPv6 only. Details of such an upgrade are beyond
the scope of this specification.
NOTE 2: This specification only concerns IPv4 communication between
IPv4-capable endpoints. For communication between IPv4-only
endpoints and IPv6 only remote endpoints, the BIH specification of
[RFC6535] can be used. It can coexist in a node with the CE
function, including if the IPv4-only function is a NAT44 [RFC1631].
4. Protocol Specification
4.1. Mapping rules and other Domain parameters
R-2: CEs and BRs MUST be configured with the following Domain
parameters:
A. One or several Mapping rules, each one comprising:
1. Rule IPv4 prefix
2. EA-bits length
3. Rule IPv6 prefix
4. WKPs authorized (OPTIONAL)
5. Rule IPv6 suffix (OPTIONAL)
B. Domain PMTU
C. Hub&spoke topology (Yes or No)
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
D. Tunnel traffic class (OPTIONAL)
"Rule IPv4 prefix" is used to find which Mapping rule applies to a
4rd IPv4 address (Section 4.4). Rules where it is longer than /0 are
CE mapping rules. It is a /0 in BR and NAT64+ mapping rules.
"EA-bits length" specifies the number of bits of 4rd IPv4 addresses
that, with this Mapping rule, are copied into the derived 4rd IPv6
address. It MUST be 32 in BR and NAT64+ mapping rules.
"Rule IPv6 prefix" is the prefix that is substituted to the Rule IPv4
prefix found in a 4rd IPv4 address to derive a 4rd IPv6 address
(Section 4.4). In a BR mapping rule, it MUST be a /80 whose 9th
octet is the V octet. In a NAT64+ mapping rule it MUST be a /80
whose 9th octet is the "u" octet of [RFC6052].
"WKPs authorized" can be set if the mapping rule assigns shared IPv4
addresses to CEs (length of Rule IPv4 prefix plus EA-bits length >
0). It then specifies that well-known ports can be assigned to some
CEs depending on their PSID values. If not set, fairness is
privileged, with no well-known port assigned to any CE, whatever its
PSID value (privilege to fairness).
"Rule IPv6 suffix", if provided, is a field to be added after EA bits
of a 4rd IPv6 address after its EA bits.
It is only used in Domains where a CEs can be placed in customer
sites behind third-party CPEs, and where these CPEs use some
address bits to route packets among their physical ports (one CE
per site, always attached to the same CPE physical port). A use
case where it applies is presented in Section 5.3.2.
"Hub&spoke topology", if set to Yes, requires CEs to tunnel all IPv4
packets via BRs. If set to No, CE-to-CE packets take the same routes
as native IPv6 packets between the same CEs.
"Domain PMTU", is the IPv6 path MTU that the ISP can guarantee for
all its IPv6 paths between CEs and between BRs and CEs. It MUST be
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
at least 1280 [RFC2460].
"Tunnel traffic class", if provided, is the IPv6 traffic class that
BRs and CEs MUST set in Tunnel packets.
If this parameter is not specified, Explicit Congestion
Notification of [RFC3168], which may be set by intermediate nodes
during tunnel traversal, are propagated to IPv4 destinations.
4.2. Tunnel-packet Format
R-3: Domain-entry nodes that receive IPv4 packets with IPv4 options
MUST discard them, and return the ICMPv4 error message of
[RFC0792] that signals such an IPv4-option incompatibility:
Type = 12, Code = 0, Pointer = 20).
NOTE: This limitation is made to privilege simplicity, knowing
that no IPv4 option is necessary for IPv4 operation.
IPv4 packet Tunnel packet
: +--------------------+
Reversible : | IPv6 Header | 40
+--------------------+ : header : +--------------------+
20| IPv4 Header | :translation : |IPv6 Fragment Header| 8
+--------------------+ : <==> : +--------------------+
| IP Payload | | IP Payload |
| | <==> | |
+--------------------+ layer 4 +--------------------+
unchanged
Figure 2
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
R-4: Domain-entry nodes that receive IPv4 packets without IPv4
options MUST convert them into Tunnel packets, and Domain-exit
nodes MUST convert them back into IPv4 packets (Figure 2).
Fields values to be set at Domain entry and at Domain exit are
detailed in Table 1, and those to be set at Domain-exit are
detailed in Table 2. IPv4 DF, IPv4 TOS, and IPv4 ID, are
placed in IPv6 Identifications as detailed in Figure 3.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|.| TTL-1-7 | IPv4 TOS | IPv4 ID |
+|+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4 DF Identification field of the IPv6 Fragment header
Figure 3
+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| IPv6 FIELDS | VALUES SET AT DOMAIN ENTRY |
+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Version | 6 |
| Traffic class | TOS or parameter (Section 4.6) |
| Flow label | 0 |
| Payload length | Total length - 12 |
| Next header | 44 (Fragment header) |
| Hop limit (bit 0) | Time to live (bit 0) |
| Hop limit (bits 1-7) | 127 |
| Source address | See Section 4.4 |
| Dest. address | See Section 4.4 |
| 2nd next header | Protocol |
| Frag. offset | Frag. offset |
| M | More fragments (MF) |
| IPv4 DF | Don't fragment (DF) |
| TTL-1-7 | TTL (bits 0-7) |
| IPv4 TOS | Type of service (TOS) |
| IPv4 ID | Identification |
+----------------------+--------------------------------+
Table 1
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| IPv4 FIELDS | VALUES SET AT DOMAIN EXIT |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Version | 4 |
| Header length | 5 |
| TOS | Traffic class or IPv4 TOS (Section 4.6) |
| Total Length | Payload length + 12 |
| Identification | IPv4 ID |
| DF | IPv4 DF |
| MF | M |
| Fragment offset | Fragment offset |
| Time to live (bit 0) | Hop limit (bit 0) |
| Time to live (bits 1-7) | TTL-1-7 |
| Protocol | 2nd Next header |
| Header checksum | Computed as per [RFC0791] |
| Source address | Bits 80-11 of source address |
| Destination address | Bits 80-11 of destination address |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 2
4.3. From IPv6 Prefixes to 4rd IPv4 prefixes and port sets
R-5: A CE whose delegated IPv6 prefix starts with the Rule IPv6
prefix of one or several Mapping rules MUST select the rule for
which the match is the longest. It then derives its 4rd IPv4
prefix and follows (Figure 4). First, the CE replaces the Rule
IPv6 prefix by the Rule IPv4 prefix and, if the found Mapping
rule has a Domain IPv6 suffix, deletes its last s bits, where s
is the Rule-IPv6-suffix length. The result is the CE 4rd IPv4
prefix. If this CE 4rd IPv4 prefix has less than 32 bits, the
CE takes it as its assigned IPv4 prefix. If it has exactly 32
bits, the CE takes it as its IPv4 address. If it has more than
32 bits, the CE MUST takes the first 32 bits as its shared IPv4
address, and bits beyond the first 32 as its Port-set
identifier (PSID). Ports of its restricted port set are by
default those that have any non-zero value in their first 4
bits, followed by the PSID, and followed by any values in
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
remaining bits. If the WKP authorized option is set, all ports
can be assigned: there is no 4-bit offset before the PSID
(Figure 4).
NOTE: The choice of the default PSID position in Port fields
has been guided by the following objectives: (1) for fairness,
avoid having any of the well-known ports 0-1023 in the port set
specified by any PSID value (these ports have more value than
others); (2) for compatibility RTP/RTCP [RFC4961], include in
each port set pairs of consecutive ports; (3) in order to
facilitate operation and training, have the PSID at a fixed
position in port fields; (4) in order to facilitate
documentation in hexadecimal notation, and to facilitate
maintenance, have this position nibble aligned. With the
choice made, port range 0-4095 is unassigned instead of only
0-1023, the minimum required, but this is a trade-off in view
of other objectives, in particular nibble alignment and overall
simplicity.
R-6: A CE whose delegated prefix matches the Rule IPv6 prefix of no
CE Mapping rule, but matches that of the BR mapping rule, MUST
take as it IPv4 address the 32 bit that follow this /80 prefix
in its delegated IPv6 prefix. If this delegated prefix is not
a /112, 4rd cannot be enabled, and an implementation-dependent
administrative action MAY be taken.
A CE whose delegated prefix matches the Rule IPv6 prefix of
neither any CE Mapping rule or BR mapping rule, but is in a
Domain that has a NAT64+ mapping rule, MUST take as its IPv4
address the unspecified IPv4 address 0.0.0.0.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
+--------------------------------------------+
| CE IPv6 prefix |
+--------------------------+-----------------+
: Longest match : :
: with a Rule IPv6 prefix : :
: || : :
: \/ : :
+--------------------------+ :
| Rule IPv6 prefix | :<-.->:
+--------------------------+ : \
|| : : Length of the
\/ : : Rule IPv6 suffix
+-----------------+-----------+(if the rule has one)
|Rule IPv4 prefix | EA bits |
+-----------------+-----------+
: :
+-----------------------------+
| CE 4rd IPv4 prefix |
+-----------------------------+
________/ \_________ :
/ \ :
: ____:________________/ \__
: / : \
: =< 32 : : > 32 :
+----------------+ +-----------------+----+
|IPv4 prfx or add| OR | IPv4 address |PSID|
+----------------+ +-----------------+----+
: 32 : ||
\/
: 4 :
+---+----+---------+ +----+-------------+
Ports in the CE port set |> 0|PSID|any value| OR |PSID| any value |
+---+----+---------+ +----+-------------+
: 16 : : 16 :
Figure 4
4.4. From 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6 Addresses
R-7: BRs, and CEs that are assigned public IPv4 addresses, shared or
not, MUST derive 4rd IPv6 addresses from 4rd IPv4 addresses by
the steps below (or their functional equivalent (Figure 5
details the shared address case):
(1) If Hub&spoke topology is No in the Domain, find the
Mapping rule whose Rule IPv4 prefix has the longest match
with the IPv4 address.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
(2) If none is found with an IPv4 prefix longer than /0, or if
Hub&spoke topology is Yes in the Domain, take the BR
mapping rule, if it exists, the NAT64+ mapping rule
otherwise.
: 32 : : 16
+----------------------------+ +---------------+
| IPv4 address | |Port or ICMP ID|
+----------------------------+ +---+------+----+
: Longest match : : 4 : PSID :
: with a Rule IPv4 prefix : ____/length :
: || :/ if > 0 in :
: \/ : the rule :
: : ______/
: : /
+----------------+-----------+----+
|Rule IPv4 prefix|IPv4 suffix|PSID|
+----------------+-----------+----+
: : : :
+----------------+----------------+
|Rule IPv4 prefix| EA bits |
+----------------+----------------+
|| \_______ \__
\/ \ \
+--------------------------+-----------+---+
| Rule IPv6 prefix | EA bits | . |
+--------------------------+-----------+--\+
: \
: :\_ Domain IPv6 suffix
+------------------------------------------+ (if the rule has one)
| IPv6 prefix |
+------------------------------------------+
:\________________________________ / \
: _____________________\______/ \_______________
: / \ \
: =<64 : : 112 :
+----------+---+-+-+------+---+ +--------------+-+-+------+---+
|CE v6 prfx| 0 |V|0|v4 add|CNP| |BR IPv6 prefix|V|0|v4 add|CNP|
+----------+-|-+-+-|+-----+---+ +--------------+-+-+------+---+
: =<64 : | :8:8: 32 :16 : : 64 :8:8: 32 :16 :
|
Padding to /64
Figure 5
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
(3) If the Rule IPv4 prefix plus EA-bits length does not
exceed 32, i.e. 4rd IPv4 prefix = 32 - k with >= 0, delete
the last k bits of the IPv4 address.
Otherwise, i.e. if the Rule IPv4 prefix plus EA-bits
length is 32 + k with k >= 0, take k as the PSID length,
and append to the IPv4 address the PSID copied from bits 4
to 4 + k - 1 of a field whose place depends on whether the
address is source or destination, on whether the packet is
ICMP or not, and, if it is ICMP, whether it is an error
message or an echo message:
a. If the packet Protocol is not ICMP, bits 0-15 for an
IPv4 source address, and bits 16-31 for a destination
address.
b. If the packet is an ICMPv4 error message, bits 240-255
for a source address; bits 224-239 for a destination
address.
c. If the packet is an ICMPv4 echo or echo-reply message,
the Port field is the ICMPv4 Identification field
(bits 32-47).
NOTE: Using Identification fields of ICMP messages as port
fields permits to exchange Echo requests and Echo replies
between shared-address CEs and and IPv4 hosts having
exclusive IPv4 addresses. Echo exchanges between two
shared-address CEs remain impossible, but this is a
limitation inherent to address sharing (one reason among
many to use IPv6).
Editor's note following questions on the WG mailing list:
As specified, the PSID, when applicable, is taken in the
TCP-like port field of the available IPv4 payload without
checking that the protocol is one that really has a port
field. This is what keeps BR operation independent from
layer-4 protocols. A consequence to be noted is that a
packet may go from a BR to a shared-address CE with a
protocol that is not supported by this CE. In this case,
the normal CE-node-NAT44 reaction is to returns an ICMPv4
"protocol unreachable" error message. The IPv4 source is
thus informed of its mistake.
(4) Replace in the result the Rule IPv4 prefix by the Rule
IPv6 prefix.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
(5) If the Mapping rule has a Domain IPv6 suffix, append this
suffix to the result.
(6) If the result is shorter than a /64, append to it a null
padding up to 64 bits, followed by a V octet (0x03),
followed by a null octet, and followed by the IPv4
address.
NOTE: The V octet is a 4rd-specific mark. Its function is
to ensure that 4rd does not interfere with the choice of
subnet prefixes in CE sites. For this, the V octet has
its "u" and "g" bits of [RFC4291] both set to 1. This
differs from "u" = 0, reserved for local-scope Interface
IDs, and also differs from "u" = 1 and "g"= 0, reserved
for unicast Interface IDs using the EUI-64 format. Bits
other than "u" and "g", are proposed to be 0, giving V =
0x03.
With the V octet, IPv6 packets can be routed to the 4rd
function within a CE node based on a /80 prefix that no
native-IPv6 address can contain.
The V octet can also facilitate maintenance by the
parameterless distinction it introduces between Tunnel
packets and native-IPv6 packets. A tunnel packet has at
least one of its IPv6 addresses having the V octet.
(7) Add to the result a Checksum-neutrality preserver (CNP)
equal, in one's complement arithmetic, to minus the sum of
the five 16-bit words of address-bits 0-79.
NOTE: CNP guarantees that, for all protocols that have
ports at the same place as in TCP and use the same
checksum algorithm as TCP, Tunnel packets are valid IPv6
packets, and this independently from where the checksum
field is placed for each protocol. Today, such protocols
are UDP [RFC0768], TCP [RFC0793], UDP-Lite [RFC3828], and
DCCP [RFC5595]. Should new ones be specified, BRs will
support them without needing an update.
(8) CEs that are assigned unspecified IPv4 addresses
(Section 4.3), MUST use source and IPv6 addresses as
detailed in Figure 6, (a) and (b) respectively. A NAT64+
uses as IPv6 source address (b), and as IPv6 destination
address that it has in its binding information base.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
+---------------------+---------+---+-----------------+------+
(a) | CE IPv6 prefix | 0 | V | 0 | CNP |
+---------------------+---------+---+-----------------+------+
: =< 64 : >= 0 : 8 : 40 : 16 :
<----------- Rule IPv6 prefix --------->:
+-------------------------------+---+---+-------------+------+
(b) | NAT64+ IPv6 prefix |"u"| 0 |DST IPv4 add.| CNP |
+-------------------------------+---+---+-------------+------+
: 64 : 8 : 8 : 32 : 16 :
Figure 6
4.5. Fragmentation Considerations
4.5.1. Fragmentation at Domain Entry
R-8: If an IPv4 packet enters a CE or BR with a size such that the
size of a directly derived Tunnel packet would exceed the
Domain PMTU, the packet has to be either fragmented or
discarded. The Domain-entry node MUST discard it if it has DF
= 1 (with an ICMP error message returned to the source). It
MUST fragment it otherwise. The payload length of each
fragment MUST be at most Domain PMTU - 48.
4.5.2. Ports of Fragments addressed to Shared-Address CEs
Because ports are available only in first fragments of IPv4
fragmented packets, a BR needs a mechanism to send to the right
shared-address CEs all fragments of fragmented packets.
For this, a BR MAY systematically reassemble fragmented IPv4 packets
before tunneling them. However, but this consumes large memory
space, opens denial-of-service-attack opportunities, and can
significantly increase forwarding delays.
R-9: BRs SHOULD support an algorithm whereby received IPv4 packets
can be forwarded on the fly. The following is an example of
such algorithm:
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
(1) At BR initialization, if at least one CE mapping rule
concerns shared IPV4 addresses (length of Rule IPv4 prefix
+ EA-bits length > 32), the BR initializes an empty "IPv4-
packet table" whose entries have the following items:
- IPv4 source
- IPv4 destination
- IPv4 identification.
- Destination port.
(2) When the BR receives an IPv4 packet whose matching Mapping
rule is one of shared addresses (length of Rule IPv4
prefix + EA-bits length > 32), the the BR searches the
table for an entry whose IPv4 source, IPv4 destination,
and IPv4 Identification, are those of the received packet.
The BR then performs actions detailed in Table 3 depending
on which conditions hold.
(3) The BR performs garbage collection for table entries that
remain unchanged for longer than some limit. This limit,
normally longer that the maximum time normally needed to
reassemble a packet is not critical. It should however
not be longer than 15 seconds [RFC0791].
+---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| - CONDITIONS - | | | | | | | | |
| First Fragment (offset=0) | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
| Last fragment (MF=0) | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N |
| An entry has been found | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N |
| ------------------------- | | | | | | | | |
| - RESULTING ACTIONS - | | | | | | | | |
| Create a new entry | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Use the port of the entry | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Update port of the entry | - | - | X | - | - | - | X | - |
| Delete the entry | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Forward the packet | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | - |
+---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Table 3
R-10: For the above algorithm to be effective, CEs that are assigned
shared IPv4 addresses MUST NOT interleave fragments of several
fragmented packets.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
R-11: CEs that are assigned IPv4 prefixes, and are in nodes that
route public IPv4 addresses rather than only using NAT44s,
MUST have the same behavior as described just above for BRs.
4.5.3. Packet Identifications from Shared-Address CEs
When packets go from CEs that share the same IPv4 address to a common
destination, a precaution is needed to guarantee that packet
Identifications set by sources are different. Packet reassembly at
destination, which is based only on source IPv4 address and
Identification, could otherwise be confused. Probability of such
confusions may in theory be very low but, in order to avoid creating
new attack opportunities, a safe solution is needed.
R-12: A CE that is assigned a shared IPv4 address MUST only crete
packet Identifications that have the CE PSID in their bits 4
to 4 + PSID length - 1.
R-13: A BR or a CE that receives a packet from a shared-address CE
MUST check that bits 4 to 4 + PSID length - 1 of the packet
Identification are equal to the PSID found in source 4rd IPv4
address.
4.6. TOS and Traffic-Class Considerations
In networks that support Explicit congestion notification (ECN), the
TOS of IPv4 headers and the Traffic class of IPv6 headers have the
same meanings [RFC3168]. Their first 6 bits are a Differentiated
Services CodePoint (DSCP), and their two last bits are an Explicit
Congestion Notification (ECN). [RFC6040] details how the ECN field
MAY evolve if a packet traverses a router that signals congestion
condition before packets are dropped.
R-14: In a 4rd domain that has a Tunnel-traffic-class parameter, BRs
and CE's MUST, at Domain entry, copy this parameter to set
Traffic-class fields of Tunnel packets they transmit, and copy
the IPv4 TOS into the IPv4-TOS field of Figure 3. At Domain
exit, they MUST copy back the IPv4-TOS-field value into the
TOS field of the IPv4 packet.
R-15: A 4rd domain that has no Tunnel-traffic-class parameter MUST
support the ECN normal mode of [RFC6040]. Its BRs and CEs
MUST copy the IPv4 TOS into the IPv6 Traffic class at Domain
entry, and copy back the IPv6 Traffic class (which may have a
changed ECN value), into the IPv4 TOS at Domain exit.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
4.7. Tunnel-Generated ICMPv6 Error Messages
If an Tunnel packet is discarded on its way across a 4rd domain
because of an unreachable destination, an ICMPv6 error message is
returned to the IPv6 source (an address starting with the BR IPv6
prefix, or with a CE IPv6 and having the V octet). For the source of
the discarded IPv4 packet to be informed of packet loss, the ICMPv6
message has to be converted into an ICMPv4 message.
R-16: If a CE or BR receives an ICMPv6 error message [RFC4443], it
MUST synthesize an ICMPv4 error packet [RFC0792]. This packet
MUST contain the first 8 octets of the discarded-packet IP
payload. If the CE or BR has a global IPv4 address, this
address MUST be used as source of this packet. Otherwise,
192.70.192.254 SHOULD be used as this source (address taken in
the /24 range proposed for such a purpose in
draft-xli-behave-icmp-address-04, and subject to IANA
confirmation). ICMPv6 Type = 1 and Code = 0 (Destination
unreachable, No route to destination") MUST be translated into
ICMPv4 Type = 3 and Code = 0 (Destination unreachable, Net
unreachable). ICMPv6 Type = 1 and Code = 0 (Time exceeded,
Hop limit exceeded in transit) MUST be translated into ICMPv4
Type = 11 and Code = 0 (Time exceeded, Time to live exceeded
in transit).
4.8. Provisioning 4rd Parameters to CEs
Domain parameters listed in Section 4.1 are subject to the following
constraints:
R-17: Each Domain MUST have a BR mapping rule and/or a NAT64+
mapping rule.
The BR mapping rule is used by CEs that are assigned public
IPv4 addresses, shared or not, and the NAT64+ mapping rule is
used by CEs that are assigned unspecified IPv4 addresses
(Section 4.3).
R-18: Each CE and each BR MUST support up to 32 Mapping rules.
This number of is to ensure that independently acquired CEs an
BR nodes can always interwork. (Its value, which is not
critical, can easily be changed if another value is found by
the WG more desirable.)
ISPs that need Mapping rules for more IPv4 prefixes than this
number SHOULD split their networks into multiple Domains.
Communication between these domains can be done in IPv4, or by
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
some implementation-dependent but equivalent other means.
R-19: For mesh topologies (CE-CE paths without BR traversal), all
mapping rules of the Domain MUST be sent to all CEs. For hub-
and-spoke topologies (all CE-CE paths via BRs), each CE MAY
only be sent the BR mapping rule of the Domain plus, if
different, the CE mapping rule that applies to its IPv6
prefix.
R-20: CEs MUST be able to acquire Parameter listed in Section 4.1 in
DHCPv6 (ref. [RFC2131]), with formats detailed in Figure 7
and Figure 8.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_4RD_RULE | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| prefix4-len | prefix6-len | ea-len |sfx-len| sfx |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rule-ipv4-prefix |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| rule-ipv6-prefix |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7
o option-code: OPTION_4RD_RULE (TBD1)
o option-length: 20
o prefix4-len: number of bits of the Rule IPv4 prefix
o prefix6-len: number of bits of the Rule IPv6 prefix
o sfx-len: number of bits of the Rule IPv6 suffix (= 0 if the rule
has no suffix)
o ea-len: EA-bits length
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
o rule-ipv4-prefix: Rule IPv4 prefix, left aligned
o W: WKP authorized, = 1 if set
o rule-ipv6-prefix: Rule IPv6 prefix, left aligned
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_4RD | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|H| 0 |T| traffic-class | domain-pmtu |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8
o option-code: OPTION_4RD (TBD2)
o option-length: 4
o H: Hub&spoke topology (= 1 if Yes)
o T: Traffic-class flag (= 1 if a Tunnel traffic class is provided)
o traffic-class: Tunnel-traffic class
o domain-pmtu: Domain PMTU (at least 1280)
Other means than DHCPv6 that may prove useful to provide 4rd
parameters to CEs are off-scope for this document. The same or
similar parameter formats would however be recommended to facilitate
training and operation.
5. Use-Case Examples
5.1. Textual representation of Mapping rules
In the next sections, each Mapping rule will be represented as
follows, using 0bXXX to represent binary number XXX, and square
brackets [ ] for what is optional:
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
{Rule IPv4 prefix, EA-bits length, Rule IPv6 prefix[, Rule IPv6 suffix]}
EXAMPLES:
{0.0.0.0/0, 32, 2001:db8:0:1:3000::/80}
(a BR mapping rule)
{0.0.0.0/0, 32, 2001:db8:0:1::/80}
(a NAT64+ mapping rule)
{198.16.0.0/14, 22, 2001:db8:4000::/34}
(a CE mapping rule)
{198.16.0.0/14, 22, 2001:db8:4000::/34, 0b0010}
(a CE mapping rule with a suffix)
5.2. A pragmatic method to configure Mapping Rules
As far as mapping rules are concerned, the simplest deployment model
is that in which the Domain has only one rule (the BR mapping rule).
To assign an IPv4 address to a CE in this model, an IPv6 /112 is
assigned to it comprising the BR /64 prefix, the V octet, a null
octet, and the IPv4 address. This model has however the following
limitations: (1) shared IPv4 addresses are not supported; (2) IPv6
prefixes used for 4rd are too long to be used also for native IPv6
addresses; (3) if the IPv4 address space of the ISP is split with
many disjoint IPv4 prefixes, the IPv6 routing plan must be as complex
as an IPv4 routing plan based on these prefixes.
With more mapping rules, CE prefixes used for 4rd can be those used
for native IPv6. How to choose CE mapping rules for a particular
deployment needs not being standardized.
The following is only a particular pragmatic approach that can be
used for various deployment scenarios, and which is used in use-cases
that follow:
(1) Select a "Common IPv6 prefix" that will appear at the beginning
of all 4rd CE IPv6 prefixes.
(2) Choose all IPv4 prefixes to be used for 4rd, and which of them
will be used for rule i.
(3) Choose the sharing ratio 2^Ki applicable to rule i, thus
determining PSID_length(i) = Ki. For a rule that assigns IPv4
prefixes of length L shorter than /32 to CEs take as negative
PSID length L - 32.
(4) Choose the length of CE IPv6 prefixes applicable to rule i.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
(5) Derive from these data, and for each rule, the length of the
"Rule code" that will be appended to the Common prefix to get
the Rule IPv6 prefix (Figure 9):
L[Rule code(i)] = L[CE IPv6 prefix(i)]
- L[Common_IPv6_prefix]
- 32 - L[Rule IPv4 prefix(i)] + PSID_length(i)
:<--------------------- L(CE IPv6 prefix(i)) --------------------->:
: :
: 32 - L(Rule IPv4 prefix(i)) L(PSID(i)) :
: \ | :
:<-- L(Common IPv6 prefix) ->: :<---------'--------><--'-->:
: : : :
: : || : || :
: : \/ : \/ :
: :<------->:<----- L(EA bits(i)) ----->:
: L(Rule code(i)
: : :
+----------------------------+---------+
| Common IPv6 prefix |Rule code|
| | (i) |
+----------------------------+---------+
:<------ L(Rule IPv6 prefix(i)) ------>:
Figure 9
(6) For each rule taken successively, take as Rule code the prefix
which has the obtained length, which does not overlap with
previously chosen Rule codes, and which, to make a systematic
choice, has the lowest value. (Lowest if interpreted as
fractional part of a binary number: with successive lengths 4, 3
, 5, and 2, this gives for example, in binary notation, 0000,
001, 00010, and 01)
5.3. Adding Shared IPv4 Addresses to an IPv6 Network
5.3.1. With CEs within CPEs
We consider an ISP that offers IPv6-only service to up to 2^20
customers. Each customer is delegated a /56, starting with common
prefix 2001:db8:0::/36. It wants to add public IPv4 service to
customers that are 4rd-capable. It prefers to do it with stateless
operation in its nodes, but has largely less IPv4 addresses than IPv6
addresses so that a sharing ratio is necessary.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
The only IPv4 prefixes it can use are 192.8.0.0/15, 192.4.0.0/16,
192.2.0.0/16, and 192.1.0.0/16 (neither overlapping nor
aggregetable). This gives 2^(32-15) + 3*2^(32-16) IPv4 addresses,
i.e. 2^18 + 2^16). For the 2^20 customers to have the same sharing
ratio, the number of IPv4 addresses to be shared has to be a power of
2. The ISP can therefore renounce to use one /16, say the last one.
(Whether it could be motivated to return it to its Internet Registry
is off-scope for this document.) The sharing ratio to apply is then
2^20 / 2^18 = 2^2 = 4, giving a PSID length of 2.
Applying principles of Section 5.2 with L[Common IPv6 prefix] = 36,
L[PSID] = 2 for all rules, and L[CE IPv6 prefix(i)] = 56 for all
rules, Rule codes and Rule IPv6 prefixes are:
+--------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+
| CE Rule IPv4 | EA | Rule-Code | Code | CE Rule IPv6 |
| prefix | bits | length | (binary) | prefix |
| | length | | | |
+--------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+
| 192.8.0.0/15 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 2001:db8:0::/37 |
| 192.4.0.0/16 | 18 | 2 | 10 | 2001:db8:800::/38 |
| 192.2.0.0/16 | 18 | 2 | 11 | 2001:db8:c00::/38 |
+--------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+
Mapping rules are then the following:
{192.8.0.0/15, 19, 2001:0db8:0000::/37}
{192.4.0.0/16, 18, 2001:0db8:0800::/38}
{192.2.0.0/16, 18, 2001:0db8:0c00::/38}
{0.0.0.0/0, 32, 2001:0db8:0000:0001:3000::/80}
The CE whose IPv6 prefix is, for example, 2001:db8:0bbb:bb00::/56,
derives its IPv4 address and its port set, according to Section 4.3,
as sfollows:
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
IPv6 prefix : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb00::/56
Rule IPv6 prefix(i) : 2001:0db8:0800::/38 (longest match)
Rule IPv4 prefix(i) : 192.4.0.0/16
EA-bits length(i) : 18
PSID length(i) : 16 + 18 - 32 = 2
EA bits : 11 1011 1011 1011 1011
Rule IPv4 prefix(i) : 1100 0000 0000 0100
IPv4 address : 1100 0000 0000 0100 1110 1110 1110 1110
PSID : 11
IPv4 address : 192.4.238.238 (1110 1110 = 238)
Ports : yyyy 11xx xxxx xxxx
with y..y > 0, and x...x any value
An IPv4 packet sent to address 192.4.238.238 and port 7777 is
tunneled to the IPv6 address obtained as follows (Section 4.4):
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
IPv4 address : 192.4.238.238
Port field : 7777 (0x1E61)
Rule IPv4 prefix (i) : 192.4.0.0/16 (longest match)
EA-bits length (i) : 18
Rule IPv6 prefix (i) : 2001:0db8:0800::/38
IPv4 address : 1100 0000 0000 0100 1110 1110 1110 1110
EA bits
Rule IPv4 prefix (i) : 1100 0000 0000 0100
IPv4 suffix : 1110 1110 1110 1110
PSID length (i) : 19 - 17 = 2
Port field : 0001 1110 0110 0001 (7777)
PSID : 11
EA bits : 1110 1110 1110 1110 11
: 11 1011 1011 1011 1011
CE IPv6 prefix : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb00::/56
IPv6 address : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb00:3000:192.4.238.238:YYYY
with YYYY = the computed CNP
5.3.2. With some CEs behind Third-party Router CPEs
We now consider an ISP that has the same need as in the previous
section except that, instead of using only its own IPv6
infrastructure, it uses that of a third-party provider, and that some
of its customers use CPEs of this provider to use specific services
that it offers. In these CPEs, a non-zero index is used to route
IPv6 packets to the physical port to which CEs are attached, say 0x2.
Each such CPE delegates to the CE nodes the customer-site IPv6 prefix
followed by this index.
The ISP is supposed to have the same IPv4 prefixes as in the previous
use case, 192.8.0.0/15, 192.4.0.0/16, and 192.2.0.0/16, and to use
the same Common IPv6 prefix, 2001:db8:0::/36.
We also assume that only a minority of customers use the third-party
CPE, so that it is sufficient to use only one of the two /16s for
them.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
Mapping rules are then:
{192.8.0.0/15, 19, 2001:0db8:0000::/37}
{192.4.0.0/16, 18, 2001:0db8:0800::/38, 0b0001}
{192.2.0.0/16, 18, 2001:0db8:0c00::/38}
{0.0.0.0/0, 32, 2001:0db8:0000:0001:3000::/80}
CEs that are behind third-party CPEs derive their own IPv4 addresses
and port sets as in Section 5.3.1, except that, because the Mapping
rule that applies to their IPv6 prefixes have a Rule IPv6 suffix,
they delete this suffix from the end of their delegated IPv6 prefixes
before deriving their 4rd IPv4 prefixes (Section 4.3).
In a BR, and also in a CE if the topology is mesh, the IPv6 address
that is derived from IPv4 address 192.4.238.238 and port 7777 is
obtained as in the previous section, except for the two last steps
which become:
CE IPv6 prefix : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb20::/60 (suffix 0x2 appended)
IPv6 address : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb20:3000:192.4.238.238:YYYY
with YYYY = the computed CNP
5.4. Replacing Dual-stack Routing by IPv6-only Routing
In this use case, we consider an ISP that offers IPv4 service with
public addresses individually assigned to its customers. It also
offers IPv6 service, having deployed for this dual-stack routing.
Because it provides its own CPEs to customers, it can upgrade all its
CPEs to support 4rd. It wishes to take advantage of this capability
to replace dual-stack routing by IPv6-only routing without changing
any IPv4 address or IPv6 prefix.
For this, the ISP can use the single-rule model described at the
beginning of Section 5.2. If the prefix routed to BRs is chosen to
start with 2001:db8:0:1::/64, this rule is:
{0.0.0.0/0, 32, 2001:db8:0:1:3000::/80}
All what is needed in the network before disabling IPv4 routing is
the following:
o In all routers, where there is an IPv4 route toward x.x.x.x/n, add
a parallel route toward 2001:db8:0:1:3000:x.x.x.x::/(80+n)
o Where IPv4 address x.x.x.x was assigned to a CPE, now delegate
IPv6 prefix 2001:db8:0:1:3000:x.x.x.x::/112.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
NOTE: In parallel with this deployment, or after it, shared IPv4
addresses can be assigned to IPv6 customers. It is sufficient that
IPv4 prefixes used for this be different from those used for
exclusive-address assignments. Under this constraint, Mapping rules
can be set up according to the same principles as those of
Section 5.3.
5.5. Adding IPv6 and 4rd Service to a Net-10 network
In this use case, we consider an ISP that has only deployed IPv4,
possibly because some of its network devices are not yet IPv6
capable. Because it did not have enough IPv4 addresses, it has
assigned private IPv4 addresses of [RFC1918] to customers, say
10.x.x.x to support up to 2^24 customers ("Net-10" network, NAT444
model of [I-D.shirasaki-nat444]). It wishes to offer IPv6 service
without further delay, using for this 6rd [RFC5969]. It also wishes
to offer incoming IPv4 connectivity to its customers with a simpler
solution than that of PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].
The IPv6 prefix to be used for 6rd is supposed to be 2001:db8::/32,
and the public IPv4 prefix to be used for shared addresses is
supposed to be 192.16.0.0/16 (0xc610). The resulting sharing ratio
is 2^24 / 2^(32-16) = 256, giving a PSID length of 8.
The ISP installs one or several BRs, at its border to the public IPv4
Internet. They support 6rd, and 4rd above it. The BR prefix /64 is
supposed to be that which is derived from IPv4 address 10.0.0.1 (i.e.
2001:db8:0:100:/64).
In accordance with [RFC5969], 6rd BRs are configured with the
following parameters IPv4MaskLen = 8, 6rdPrefix = 2001:db8::/32;
6rdBRIPv4Address = 192.168.0.1 (0xC0A80001).
4rd Mapping rules are then the following:
{192.16.0.0/16, 24, 2001:db8:0:0:3000::/80}
{0.0.0.0/, 32, 2001:db8:0:100:3000:/80,}
Any customer device that supports 4rd can then use its assigned
shared IPv4 address with 240 assigned ports. It can thus avoid
cascading its NAT44 with the NAT44 carrier-grade NAT44 of the ISP.
A CE whose NAT44 supports port forwarding, to provide incoming IPv4
connectivity either statically or dynamically with UPnP an/or NAT-
PMP, can use this port forwarding with ports of the assigned port set
(a possibility that does not exist in Net-10 networks without 4rd/
6rd).
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
6. Security Considerations
Spoofing attacks
R-21: Domain-exit nodes MUST check, in each Tunnel packet they
receive, that source the IPv6 address is that which is
derived from the source 4rd IPv4 address of the packet. If
the check fails the packet MUST be silently discarded.
This is needed because IPv6 ingress filtering [RFC3704] does not
guarantee that the Tunnel packets are built in compliance with
rules of the present specification.
With this precaution, and provided IPv6 ingress filtering is
effective in the Domain, no opportunity for spoofing attacks in
IPv4 is introduced by 4rd.
Routing-loop attacks
Routing-loop attacks that may exist in some automatic-tunneling
scenarios are documented in [RFC6324]. No opportunity for
routing-loop attacks 4rd has been identified with 4rd.
Fragmentation-related attacks
As discussed in Section 4.5, each BR of a Domain that assigns
shared IPv4 should maintain a dynamic table for fragmented packets
that go to these shared-address CEs.
This opens a vulnerability to a denial of service attack from
hosts that would send very large numbers of first fragments, with
different Identifications, without sending last fragments having
the same Identifications. This vulnerability. Compared to that
of BRs that reassemble fragmented packets, This vulnerability,
which is is inherent to IPv4 address sharing (static or dynamic),
is mitigated by the algorithm of Section 4.5.2 (it uses much less
memory space than algorithms that store some fragments for some
time.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate the following:
o Two DHCPv6 option codes TBD1 and TBD2 for OPTION_4RD_RULE and
OPTION_4RD of Section 4.8 respectively (to be added to section
24.3 of [RFC3315]
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
o A reserved IPv4 address to be used as source of ICMPv4 messages
due to ICMPv6 error messages. Its proposed value is
192.70.192.254 (Section 4.7).
o An IPv6 Interface-ID type reserved for 4rd (the V octet of
Section 4.4). For this a registry is recommended for Interface-ID
types of unicast addresses that have neither local scope nor the
universal scope of Modified EUI-64 format [RFC4291]), i.e. that
have neither "u"=0 nor "u"=1 and "g"=0. is recommended. It would
be available to for new Interface IDs that may be useful in the
future.
8. Relationship with Previous Works
The present specification has been influenced by many previous IETF
drafts, in particular those accessible at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xxxx where xxxx are the following
(in order of their first versions):
o bagnulo-behave-nat64 (2008-06-10)
o xli-behave-ivi (2008-07-06)
o despres-sam-scenarios (2008-09-28)
o boucadair-port-range (2008-10-23)
o ymbk-aplusp (2008-10-27)
o xli-behave-divi (2009-10-19)
o thaler-port-restricted-ip-issues (2010-02-28)
o cui-softwire-host-4over6 (2010-05-05)
o xli-behave-divi-pd (2011-07-02)
o dec-stateless-4v6 (2011-03-05)
o matsushima-v6ops-transition-experience (2011-03-07)
o despres-intarea-4rd (2011-03-07)
o deng-aplusp-experiment-results (2011-03-08)
o murakami-softwire-4rd (2011-07-04)
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
o operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation (2011-05-05)
o murakami-softwire-4v6-translation (2011-07-04)
o despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping (2011-08-19)
o boucadair-softwire-stateless-requirements (2011-09-08)
o chen-softwire-4v6-add-format (2011-10-2)
o mawatari-softwire-464xlat (2011-10-16)
o mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option (2011-10-24)
o mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port (2011-11-25)
o mdt-softwire-map-translation (2012-01-10)
o mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation (2012-01-27)
9. Acknowledgements
This specification has benefited over several years from independent
proposals, questions, comments, constructive suggestions, and useful
criticisms, coming from numerous IETF contributors. The author would
like to thank all of them, but more particularly, in first name
alphabetical order, Brian Carpenter, Behcet Sarikaya, Cameron Byrne,
Congxiao Bao, Dan Wing, Francis Dupont, Gabor, Bajko, Gang Chen, Hui
Deng, Jan Zorz, James Huang, Jaro Arkko, Laurent Toutain, Leaf Yeh,
Mark Townsley, Maoke Chen, Marcello Bagnulo, Mohamed Boucadair, Nejc
Skoberne, Olaf Maennel, Ole Troan, Olivier Vautrin, Peng Wu, Qiong
Sun, Rajiv Asati, Ralph Droms, Randy Bush, Satoru Matsushima, Simon
Perreault, Stuart Cheshire, Teemu Savolainen, Tetsuya Murakami,
Tomasz Mrugalski, Tina Tsou, Tomasz Mrugalski, Washam Fan, Wojciech
Dec, Xiaohong Deng, Xing Li,
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[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.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC 6040, November 2010.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
draft-ietf-pcp-base-19 (work in progress), December 2011.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation]
Boucadair, M., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O.,
Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Stateless IPv4
over IPv6 Migration Solutions",
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-00 (work in
progress), September 2011.
[I-D.shirasaki-nat444]
Yamagata, I., Shirasaki, Y., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
and H. Ashida, "NAT444", draft-shirasaki-nat444-04 (work
in progress), July 2011.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC1631] Egevang, K. and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address
Translator (NAT)", RFC 1631, May 1994.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.
[RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and
G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol
(UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004.
[RFC4961] Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
BCP 131, RFC 4961, July 2007.
[RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
(DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, September 2009.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, August 2010.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 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,
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
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.
[RFC6324] Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack Using
IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed
Mitigations", RFC 6324, August 2011.
[RFC6346] Bush, R., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the
IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346, August 2011.
[RFC6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535, February 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Remi Despres (editor)
RD-IPtech
3 rue du President Wilson
Levallois,
France
Email: despres.remi@laposte.net
Reinaldo Penno
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: rpenno@juniper.net
Yiu Lee
Comcast
One Comcast Center
Philadelphia, PA 1903
USA
Email: Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) March 2012
Gang Chen
China Mobile
53A, Xibianmennei Ave.
Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053
China
Email: phdgang@gmail.com
Jacni Qin
Shanghai,
China
Email: jacni@jacni.com
Despres, et al. Expires September 29, 2012 [Page 35]
.
