Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)
draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7599.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xing Li , Congxiao Bao , Wojciech Dec , Ole Trøan , Satoru Matsushima , Tetsuya Murakami | ||
| Last updated | 2013-02-18 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-06)
by Dan Romascanu
Ready w/issues
GENART Last Call review
(of
-05)
by Dan Romascanu
Almost ready
GENART Last Call review
(of
-05)
by Dan Romascanu
Almost ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7599 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-01
Network Working Group X. Li
Internet-Draft C. Bao
Intended status: Experimental CERNET Center/Tsinghua
Expires: August 22, 2013 University
W. Dec
O. Troan
Cisco Systems
S. Matsushima
SoftBank Telecom
T. Murakami
IP Infusion
February 18, 2013
Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)
draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-01
Abstract
This document specifies the "Mapping of Address and Port" double
stateless NAT64 translation based solution (MAP-T) for providing
shared or uniquely addressed IPv4 device connectivity to and across
an IPv6 domain.
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 August 22, 2013.
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 August 22, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 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. Port mapping algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Basic mapping rule (BMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Forwarding mapping rule (FMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Default mapping rule (DMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. The IPv6 Interface Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Configuration and Packet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. ICMP Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Fragmentation in the MAP domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP domain borders . . . . 18
8.3. Sending IPv4 fragments to the outside . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Usage Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. Address Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Mesh vs Hub and spoke mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.3. Communication with IPv6 servers in the MAP-T domain . . . 19
9.4. Backwards compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Examples of MAP-T translation . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix B. Port mapping algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B.1. Bit Representation of the Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . 30
B.2. GMA examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B.3. GMA Excluded Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
1. Introduction
Experiences from initial IPv6 deployments indicate that transitioning
a network providers' domain fully to IPv6 requires not only the
continued support of legacy IPv4 users connected to the boundary of
that domain, allowing IPv4 address sharing, but also the need for
carrying out IPv6-only operational practices in that domain [, also
for traffic from IPv4 users. The use of an double NAT64 translation
based solutions is an optimal way to address these requirements,
particularly in combination with stateless translation techniques
that seek to minimize challenges outlined in
[I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation].
The Mapping of Address and Port - Translation (MAP-T) solution
defined in this document is such a 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 method, but
differing in their choice of IPv6 domain transport, i.e. Translation
[RFC6145] and encapsulation [RFC2473]. The translation mode is
required for environments where the IP encapsulation overhead or IPv6
traffic interaction & processing (eg use of IPv6 only servers)
requirements, or both, make the use of the encapsulation solution not
attractive.
A companion draft defines the DHCPv6 options for provisioning of MAP
[I-D.mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option], applicable to both MAP-T and
MAP-E.
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
MAP domain: One or more MAP CEs and BRs connected to the
same IPv6 network. A service provider may
deploy a single MAP domain, or may utilize
multiple MAP domains.
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
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 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.
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] 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.
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Rule IPv6 prefix: An IPv6 prefix assigned by a Service Provider
for a mapping rule.
Rule IPv4 prefix: An IPv4 prefix assigned by a Service Provider
for a mapping 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.
MRT: MAP Rule table. Address and Port aware data
structure, supporting longest match lookups.
The MRT is used by the MAP forwarding
function.
4. Architecture
Figure 1 depicts the overall MAP-T architecture with IPv4 users N and
M connected by means of MAP-T CEs to an IPv6 network that is equipped
with one or more MAP-T BR.
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
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 )
\ (MAP-T Domain)/ | Relay |\ /
O------------------O \ / O---------O \ /
| MAP-T CE | ;". ,-' `-. ,-'
| +-----+--------+ | ," `----+--' ------'
| NAPT44| MAP-T | | ," |
| +-----+ | | IPv6 Server(s)
| | +--------+ | (w/ v4 mapped
O---.--------------O address)
|
User M
Private IPv4
Network
Figure 1: Network Topology
The MAP-T CE is responsible for translating a users' private IPv4
space to a shared IPv4 address that is then mapped into the IPv6
domain using stateless NAT64.
The MAP-T BR is responsible for connecting external IPv4 networks to
all devices in one or more MAP-T domains, using stateless NAT64 as
extended by the MAP-T rules in this document.
Besides the CE and BR, the MAP-T domain can contain any regular (i.e.
Not equipped with MAP-T capabilities) IPv6-only hosts or servers that
have an IPv4 mapped IPv6 address (IPv4-translatable address per
[RFC6052]) using the prefix assigned to the MAP-T domain, e.g. An
internal web server, or cache. The MAP-T architecture support
communication initiated towards such devices from both inside or
outside the MAP-T domain including from any IPv4-only hosts. An
optional (not shown) DNS64 [RFC6147] component would be required if
the said IPv6 devices are expected to themselves to initiate
communication to IPv4-only entities outside of the domain.
Functionally the MAP-T CE and BR extend well established building
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
blocks 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
5.
The operation of the above functions is modelled by means of Mapping
Rules covered in Section 5. Section 6 describes how the functions
are used in packet forwarding operations.
5. Mapping Rules
EDITORIAL NOTE: This section is effectively identical of the Mapping
Rules section[I-D.ietf-softwire-map], and will be re-factored &
reconciled as the MAP-E draft finalizes.
Any MAP node needs to be provisioned with one or more mapping rules,
that form a mapping rule table.
Every MAP node MUST be provisioned with a Basic Mapping Rule (BMR).
All node's sharing a BMR are said to be part of the same MAP domain.
On a CE this rule in combination with its natively assigned IPv6
prefix, allows the CE node to determine its IPv4 address and port
range. This same BMR, when can also be used to enable direct
communication (a.k.a. mesh mode), that bypasses the BR, between CEs
in the same MAP-T domain. In practical terms this equates to the CE
having an IPv4 route entry for the IPv4 prefix assigned to that
domain, and forwarding corresponding traffic using the parameters
defined in the rule. Additional mapping rules, termed Forward
Mapping Rules (FMRs), are used to allow for multiple different IPv4
subnets to exist within the domain and optimize forwarding between
them. These are equivalent to more specific IPv4 routes.
Destination outside of a MAP domain are reached (represented) by a
Default Mapping Rule, that directs traffic to a MAP BR. i.e. Traffic
for destination IPv4 addresses that do not match using a longest
lookup to any IPv4 prefix in the Rules database, is forwarded to the
MAP BR. In MAP-T terms the CE uses stateless NAT64 to map such
traffic to the BR's IPv6 prefix. While there can be only one Default
Mapping Rule within a MAP domain, however there can be multiple BR's
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
operating on that rule.
In specific terms the three types of mapping rules are defined as:
1. Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) - used for configuring the CE's IPv4
address and/or port set assignment as well as deriving the MAP
IPv6 address that the CE is to use. For a given IPv6 prefix
there can be only one BMR. By default a BMR MUST NOT be used to
create an IPv4 route entry for the Rule IPv4 prefix.The BMR is
composed of the following parameters:
* Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length)
* Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length)
* Rule EA-bits length (in bits)
* Optional Rule Parameters
2. Forwarding Mapping Rule - used for forwarding within the MAP
domain. Each Forwarding Mapping Rule will result in an entry in
the mapping rules table for the Rule IPv4 prefix + any port
range. The FMR consists of the following parameters (an
attentive reader will note that a BMR can be set as an FMR,
thereby enabling mesh-mode communication):
* Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length)
* Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length)
* Rule EA-bits length (in bits)
* Optional Rule Port Parameters
3. Default Mapping Rule - used for reaching destinations outside the
MAP domain. A DMR will result in an IPv4 0.0.0.0/0 entry in the
rules table.
* IPv6 prefix of the BR
* Rule BR IPv4 address (Optional - can be used for testing a
BR's reachability)
4. Optional Rule 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
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
defined this value MUST default to 4.
A MAP node finds its Basic Mapping Rule by doing a longest match
between its assigned IPv6 prefix (e.g. via DHCPv6 PD) and the Rule
IPv6 prefix in the Mapping Rule database. The assigned IPv6 prefix,
is the prefix that the operator assigns to the CE using regular means
like DHCP-PD. It should be noted that this prefix is simply the
prefix that any device, including non MAP CEs get assigned, i.e. MAP
does not require an additional prefix to be assigned.
The selected BMR rule is then used for determining the IPv4 address
and port range assignment as well as forming the CE's MAP IPv6
address within the assigned IPv6 prefix. This IPv6 address MUST be
used for sending and receiving all MAP traffic by the CE.
Port-aware IPv4 entries in the rules table are installed for all the
Forwarding Mapping Rules and an IPv4 default route for the Default
Mapping Rule.
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, all traffic MUST be forwarded directly to the BR
using the Default Mapping Rule.
The following subsections specify the MAP algorithm and Rule
processing.
5.1. Port mapping algorithm
The port mapping algorithm is used in domains whose rules allow IPv4
address sharing.
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).
To minimise dependencies between the End-user IPv6 prefix and the
resulting port set, a PSID of 0, would, in the naive representation
assign the system ports [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports] to the user.
Instead using an infix representation, and requiring that the first
bit field (A) is greater than 0, the well known ports are excluded.
This algorithm allocates ports to a given CE as a series of
contiguous ranges.
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
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 2: PSID
A For a > 0, A MUST be larger than 0. This ensures that the
algorithm excludes the system ports.
a-bits The number of offset bits. The default Offset bits (a) are:
4. 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
k^2. The number of ports assigned to the user is 2^(16-k) - 2^m
(excluded ports)
M The contiguous ports.
m bits The size contiguous ports. The number of contiguous ports is
given by 2^m.
This algorithm allocates ports to a given CE as a series of
contiguous ranges.
5.2. Basic mapping rule (BMR)
The Basic Mapping Rule is mandatory, used by the CE to provision
itself with an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address or shared IPv4 address.
| n bits | o bits | s bits | 128-n-o-s bits |
+--------------------+-----------+---------+------------+----------+
| Rule IPv6 prefix | EA bits |subnet ID| interface ID |
+--------------------+-----------+---------+-----------------------+
|<--- End-user IPv6 prefix --->|
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Figure 3: IPv6 address format
The 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. The EA bits encode the CE specific IPv4 address and port
information. The EA bits, which are unique for a given Rule IPv6
prefix, can contain a full or part of an IPv4 address and, in the
shared IPv4 address case, a Port-Set Identifier (PSID). An EA-bit
length of 0 signifies that all relevant MAP IPv4 addressing
information is passed directly in the BMR rule, and not derived from
the End-user IPv6 prefix.
The MAP IPv6 address is created 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 interface-id as specified in Section 5.5.
The MAP subnet ID is defined to be the first subnet (all bits set to
zero). Unless configured differently, a MAP node MUST reserve the
first IPv6 prefix in an End-user IPv6 prefix for the purpose of MAP.
The MAP IPv6 is created by combining the End-User IPv6 prefix with
the all zeros subnet-id and the MAP IPv6 interface identifier.
Shared IPv4 address:
| r bits | p bits | | q bits |
+-------------+---------------------+ +------------+
| Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix | |Port-Set ID |
+-------------+---------------------+ +------------+
| 32 bits |
Figure 4: Shared IPv4 address
Complete IPv4 address:
| r bits | p bits |
+-------------+---------------------+
| Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix |
+-------------+---------------------+
| 32 bits |
Figure 5: Complete IPv4 address
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
IPv4 prefix:
| r bits | p bits |
+-------------+---------------------+
| Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix |
+-------------+---------------------+
| < 32 bits |
Figure 6: IPv4 prefix
The length of r MAY be zero, in which case the complete IPv4 address
or prefix is encoded in the EA bits. If only a part of the IPv4
address/prefix is encoded in the EA bits, the Rule IPv4 prefix is
provisioned to the CE by other means (e.g. a DHCPv6 option). To
create a complete IPv4 address (or prefix), the IPv4 address suffix
(p) from the EA bits, are concatenated with the Rule IPv4 prefix (r
bits).
The offset of the EA bits field in the IPv6 address is equal to the
BMR Rule IPv6 prefix length. The length of the EA bits field (o) is
given by the BMR Rule EA-bits length, and can be between 0 and 48.
The sum of the Rule IPv6 Prefix length and the Rule EA-bits length
MUST be less or equal than the End-user IPv6 prefix length.
If o + r < 32 (length of the IPv4 address in bits), then an IPv4
prefix is assigned.
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.
If o + r is > 32, then a shared IPv4 address is to be assigned. The
number of IPv4 address suffix bits (p) in the EA bits is given by 32
- r bits. The PSID bits are used to create a port-set. The length
of the PSID bit field within EA bits is: o - p.
The length of r MAY be 32, with no part of the IPv4 address embedded
in the EA bits. This results in a mapping with no dependence between
the IPv4 address and the IPv6 address. In addition the length of o
MAY be zero (no EA bits embedded in the End-User IPv6 prefix),
meaning that also the PSID is provisioned using e.g. The DHCP
option.
See Appendix A for an example of the Basic Mapping Rule.
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
5.3. Forwarding mapping rule (FMR)
The Forwarding Mapping Rule is optional, and used in mesh mode to
merit direct CE to CE connectivity.
On adding an FMR rule, an IPv4 route is installed in the Rules table
for the Rule IPv4 prefix.
On forwarding an IPv4 packet, a best matching prefix look up is done
in the Rules table and the correct FMR is chosen.
| 32 bits | | 16 bits |
+--------------------------+ +-------------------+
| IPv4 destination address | | IPv4 dest port |
+--------------------------+ +-------------------+
: : ___/ :
| p bits | / q bits :
+----------+ +------------+
|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 7: Deriving of MAP IPv6 address
See Appendix A for an example of the Forwarding Mapping Rule.
5.4. Default mapping rule (DMR)
The Default Mapping rule is used to reach all IPv4 destinations
outside of the MAP-T domain. For MAP-T, the DMR is specified in
terms of the BR IPv6 prefix that MAP-T CEs will use to form IPv6
addresses out of IPv4 destination addresses.
Default Mapping Rule:
{2001:db8:0001::/Prefix-length (Rule IPv6 prefix),
0.0.0.0/0 (Rule IPv4 prefix)}
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Example: Default Mapping Rule
Note that the BR prefix-length is variable and can be both shorter or
longer than 64 bits, up to 96 bits. In the respective cases the IPv4
address and the BR prefix are shifted and "bit spread" across the
fixed u-octet boundary as per [RFC6052]. All 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 zeroes up to 32 bits. The PSID field is 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. Configuration and Packet Forwarding
The mapping rules and architectural building blocks are combined at
the CE and BR to enable IPv4-IPv6 communication as follows.
The MAP-T CE and BR are set-up as described in Section 7 of
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map] with the only difference being that they are
set-up to operate in translation mode rather than encapsulation.
6.1. IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE
A MAP-T CE receiving IPv4 packets SHOULD perform NAT44 function first
and create appropriate NAT44 stateful bindings. The resulting IPv4
packets MUST contain the source IPv4 address and source transport
port number assigned to the CE by means of the MAP Basic Mapping Rule
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
(BMR).
The IPv4 traffic is subject to a longest IPv4 address + port match
MAP rule selection using the MRT, which then determines the
subsequent NAT64 operation. By default, all traffic is matched to
default mapping rule (DMR), and subject to the stateless NAT64
operation using the DMR parameters for the MAP algorithm and NAT64.
An optional mapping rule, known as a forward mapping rule (FMR), can
be used when forwarding to destinations that correspond to a specific
IPv4+port range in the MAP-T domain i.e. Typically the IPv4 address
and port range of another MAP-T CE, aka mesh-mode. Traffic that is
matched to such a rule is 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.
6.2. IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE
A MAP-T CE receiving an IPv6 packet performs its regular IPv6
operations, whereby only packets that are addressed to the MAP-T BMR
addresses are forwarded to the CE's stateless NAT64 function. All
other IPv6 traffic SHOULD be forwarded as per the CE's IPv6 routing
rules. The CE SHOULD check that MAP-T received packets' transport-
layer destination port number is in the range configured by MAP for
the CE and the CE SHOULD drop any non conforming packet and respond
with an ICMPv6 "Address Unreachable" (Type 1, Code 3).
The CE's stateless NAT64 function MUST derive the IPv4 source and
destination addresses as per Section 5 of this document and MUST
replace the IPv6 header with an IPv4 header in accordance with
[RFC6145]. The resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE's
NAPT function, when this is enabled, 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.
6.3. IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR
A MAP-T BR receiving IPv6 packets MUST select a best matching MAP
rule based on a longest address match of the packets' source address
against the BR's configured MAP BMR prefix(es), as well as a match of
the packet destination address against the configured FMR prefix(es).
The selected MAP rule allows the BR to determine the CE's range from
the port-set-id contained in the source IPv6 address. The BR MUST
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
perform a validation of the consistency of the source against the
allowed values from the identified port-range port. If the packets
source port number is found to be outside the range allowed for this
CE-index and the BMR, the BR MUST drop the packet and respond with an
ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, Source address failed ingress/egress
policy" (Type 1, Code 5).
The BR MUST derive the source and destination IPv4 addresses as per
Section 5 of this document and translate the IPv6 to IPv4 headers
following [RFC6145]. The resulting IPv4 packets are then passed to
regular IPv4 forwarding by the BR.
6.4. IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR
A MAP-T BR receiving IPv4 packets uses a longest match IPv4 + port
lookup to select the target MAP-T domain and rule. The BR MUST then
derive the IPv6 source and destination addresses from the IPv4 source
and destination address and port as per Section 5 of this document.
Following this, the BR MUST translate the IPv4 to IPv6 headers
following [RFC6145]. 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
do not utilize IPv4 address sharing, is the same as stateless IPv4/
IPv6 translation.
7. ICMP Handling
ICMP messages need to be supported in MAP-T domain and also across
it, taking into consideration also the NAPT 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 each provide two 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 SHOULD rewrite the ID
field to a port value derived from the Port-set-id. A BR MUST
translate the resulting ICMPv6 packets back to ICMP preserving the ID
field on its way to an IPv4 destination.
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
In the return path, when MAP-T BR receives an 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 additional port
info.
If a MAP BR receives an ICMP error message on its IPv4 interface, the
MAP BR should translate the ICMP message to an appropriate ICMPv6
message, as per [RFC6145] and forward it to the intended MAP CE with
the following considerations. If IPv4 address is not shared, the MAP
BR generates a CE IPv6 address from the IPv4 destination address in
the ICMP error message and encapsulates the ICMP message in IPv6. If
the IPv4 address is shared, the MAP BR derives an original IPv4
packet from the ICMP payload and generates a CE IPv6 address from the
source address and the source port in the original IPv4 packet.
8. 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.
8.1. 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].
8.2. 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
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
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.
8.3. 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.
9. Usage Considerations
9.1. Address Independence
The MAP solution supports use and configuration of domains in so
called 1:1 mode (meaning 1 mapping rule set per CE), which allows
complete independence between the IPv6 prefix assigned to the CE and
the IPv4 address and/or port-range it uses. This is achieved in all
cases when the EA-bit length is set to 0.
The constraint imposed is that each such MAP domain be composed of
just 1 MAP CE which has a predetermined IPv6 prefix, i.e. The BR
would be configured with a rule-set 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.
9.2. Mesh vs Hub and spoke mode
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 in the same MAP-T
domain, are governed by the activation of a Basic Mapping Rule as a
Forward Mapping Rule. By default, a MAP CE will interpret its BMR
only to setup its IPv4 parameters and IPv6 MAP address and not as an
FMR.
9.3. Communication with IPv6 servers in the MAP-T domain
MAP-T allows communication between both IPv4-only and any IPv6
enabled end hosts, with native IPv6-only servers which are using
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address based on DMR in the MAP-T domain. In this
mode, the IPv6-only servers SHOULD have both A and AAAA records in
DNS [RFC6219]. DNS64 [RFC6147] become required only when IPv6
servers in the MAP-T domain are expected themselves to initiate
communication to external IPv4-only hosts.
9.4. Backwards compatibility
A MAP-T CE, in all configuration modes, is by default compatible with
regular [RFC6146] stateful NAT64 devices that are configured to use/
advertise BR prefixes. This allows the use of MAP-T CEs in
environments that require statistical multiplexing of IPv4 addresses
while being able to compromise on the stateful nature. Furthermore,
a MAP-T CE configured to operate without address sharing (no PSID) is
compatible with any stateless NAT64 [RFC6146] devices positioned as
BRs.
10. IANA Considerations
This specification does not require any IANA actions.
11. 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.
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
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].
[RFC6269] outlines general issues with IPv4 address sharing.
12. Contributors
Mohamed Boucadair, Gang Chen, Maoke Chen, Wojciech Dec, Xiaohong
Deng, Jouni Korhonen, Tomasz Mrugalski, Jacni Qin, Chunfa Sun, Qiong
Sun, Leaf Yeh.
The following are the authors who provided a 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
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
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
13. 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 Guillaume Gottard, Dan Wing, Jan
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Zorz, Necj Scoberne, Tina Tsou for their thorough review and
comments.
14. References
14.1. 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.
14.2. 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., and
T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port with
Encapsulation (MAP)", draft-ietf-softwire-map-04 (work in
progress), February 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
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.
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
[I-D.mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option]
Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Bao, C., and W. Dec, "DHCPv6
Options for Mapping of Address and Port",
draft-mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option-03 (work in progress),
July 2012.
[I-D.xli-behave-divi]
Shang, W., Li, X., Zhai, Y., and C. Bao, "dIVI: Dual-
Stateless IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-xli-behave-divi-04
(work in progress), October 2011.
[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
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[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
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
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.
[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.
Appendix A. Examples of MAP-T translation
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Example 1 - BMR:
Given the MAP domain information and an IPv6 address of
an endpoint:
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: 4
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: o - p = (56 - 40) - 8 = 8
PSID: 0x34
Port-set-1: 4928, 4929, 4930, 4931, 4932, 4933, 4934, 4935, 4936,
4937, 4938, 4939, 4940, 4941, 4942, 4943
Port-set-2: 9024, 9025, 9026, 9027, 9028, 9029, 9030, 9031, 9032,
9033, 9034, 9035, 9036, 9037, 9038, 9039
... ...
Port-set-15 62272, 62273, 62274, 62275, 62276, 62277, 62278,
62279, 62280, 62281, 62282, 62283, 62284, 62285, 62286, 62287
The BMR information allows a MAP CE also to determine (complete)
its IPv6 address within the indicated IPv6 prefix.
IPv6 address of MAP-T CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:00c0:0002:1200:3400
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Example 2:
Another example can be made of a hypothetical MAP-T BR,
configured with the following FMR when receiving a packet
with the following characteristics:
IPv4 source address: 1.2.3.4 (0x01020304)
IPv4 source port: 80
IPv4 destination address: 192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
IPv4 destination port: 9030
Configured Forwarding Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0000::/40
(Rule IPv6 prefix), 192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
MAP-T BR Prefix 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 mapped source IPv6 address for
the IPv4 source.
IPv4 suffix bits (p) 32 - 24 = 8 (18 (0x12))
PSID length: 8
PSID: 0x34 (9030 (0x2346))
The resulting IPv6 packet will have the following key fields:
IPv6 source address 2001:db8:ffff:0:0001:0203:0400::
IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:00c0:0002:1200:3400
IPv6 source Port: 80
IPv6 destination Port: 9030
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Example 3- FMR:
An IPv4 host behind the MAP-T CE (addressed as per the previous
examples) corresponding with 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): 9030
IPv4 destination port: 80
IPv6 source address of MAP-T CE:
2001:db8:0012:3400:00c0:0002:1200:3400
IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:ffff:0:0001:0203:0400::
Example 4 - 1:1 Rule with no address sharing
IPv6 prefix assigned to the end user: 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 (CE or BR) 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 (32) - IPv4 prefix
length (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:db8:0012:3400:00c0:0002:0100:0000
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Example 5 - 1:1 Rule with address sharing (sharing ratio 256)
IPv6 prefix assigned to the end user: 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. (Sharing ratio of 256)
PSID offset: 4
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: 0
IPv4 suffix bits (p) Length of IPv4 address (32) - IPv4 prefix
length (32) = 0
IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 (0xc0000201)
PSID start: 0
PSID length: 8
PSID: 0x34
Port-set-1: 4928, 4929, 4930, 4931, 4932, 4933, 4934, 4935, 4936,
4937, 4938, 4939, 4940, 4941, 4942, 4943
Port-set-2: 9024, 9025, 9026, 9027, 9028, 9029, 9030, 9031, 9032,
9033, 9034, 9035, 9036, 9037, 9038, 9039
... ...
Port-set-15 62272, 62273, 62274, 62275, 62276, 62277, 62278,
62279, 62280, 62281, 62282, 62283, 62284, 62285, 62286, 62287
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:db8:0012:3400:00c0:0002:1200:3400
Note that the IPv4 address and PSID is not derived from the IPv6
prefix assigned to the CE.
Appendix B. Port mapping algorithm
The Generalized Modulus Algorithm (GMA) used in MAP domains can also
be expressed mathematically. Each CE in such a domain has an IPv4
address and a unique Port-Set Identifier (PSID), that is derived by
means of the BMR. For a given IPv4 address, the algorithm allows
each PSID to be processed to reveal a set of unique non-overlapping
ports, or alternatively for any given port to derive the PSID it
corresponds to. Two extreme cases supported by algorithm are: (1)
the port numbers are not contiguous for each PSID, but uniformly
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
distributed across the port range (0-65535); (2) the port numbers are
contiguous in a single range for each PSID.
For a given sharing ratio (R) and the maximum number of contiguous
ports (M), the GMA algorithm is defined as:
1. The port (P) of a given PSID (K) is composed of:
P = R * M * j + M * K + i
Where:
* PSID: K = 0 to R - 1
* Port range index: j = (4096 / M) / R to ((65536 / M) / R) - 1,
if the port numbers (0 - 4095) are excluded.
* Contiguous Port index: i = 0 to M - 1
2. The PSID (K) of a given port number (P) is determined by:
K = (floor(P/M)) % R
Where:
* % is the modulus operator
* floor(arg) is a function that returns the largest integer not
greater than arg.
B.1. Bit Representation of the Algorithm
Given a sharing ratio (R=2^k), the maximum number of contiguous ports
(M=2^m), for any PSID (K) and available ports (P) can be represented
as:
0 8 15
+---------------+----------+------+-------------------+
| Port (P) |
----------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| j | PSID (K) | M (i) |
+---------------+----------+------+-------------------+
|<----a bits--->|<-----k bits---->|<------m bits----->|
Figure 9: Bit representation
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Where j and i are the same indexes defined in the port mapping
algorithm.
For any port number, the PSID can be obtained by a bit mask
operation.
For a > 0, j MUST be larger than 0. This ensures that the algorithm
excludes the system ports ([I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports]). For a = 0,
j MAY be 0 to allow for the provisioning of the system ports.
B.2. GMA examples
For example, for R = 1024, PSID offset: a = 4 and PSID length: k = 10
bits
Port-set-1 Port-set-2
PSID=0 | 4096, 4097, 4098, 4099, | 8192, 8193, 8194, 8195, | ...
PSID=1 | 4100, 4101, 4102, 4103, | 8196, 8197, 8198, 8199, | ...
PSID=2 | 4104, 4105, 4106, 4107, | 8200, 8201, 8202, 8203, | ...
PSID=3 | 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, | 8204, 8205, 8206, 8207, | ...
...
PSID=1023| 8188, 8189, 8190, 8191, | 12284, 12285, 12286, 12287,| ...
Example 1: with offset = 4 (a = 4)
For example, for R = 64, a = 0 (PSID offset = 0 and PSID length = 6
bits):
Port-set
PSID=0 | [ 0 - 1023]
PSID=1 | [1024 - 2047]
PSID=2 | [2048 - 3071]
PSID=3 | [3072 - 4095]
...
PSID=63 | [64512 - 65535]
Example 2: with offset = 0 (a = 0)
B.3. GMA Excluded Ports
By default the GMA ensures that a number of "well known" ports are
excluded from use by the algorithm. This number is determined by the
number of offset bits (a), in the figure above. This value can be
optionally provisioned via the "Rule Port Mapping Parameters" in the
Basic Mapping Rule. In the absence of such provisioning, the
defaults are:
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
o Excluded ports : 0-4095
o Offset bits (a) : 4
For (a) offset bits, the range of excluded ports is 0 to 2 ^ (16-a) -
1.
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
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
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft MAP-T February 2013
Satoru Matsushima
SoftBank Telecom
1-9-1 Higashi-Shinbashi, Munato-ku
Tokyo
Japan
Email: satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp
Tetsuya Murakami
IP Infusion
1188 East Arques Avenue
Sunnyvale
USA
Email: tetsuya@ipinfusion.com
Li, et al. Expires August 22, 2013 [Page 33]