Softwire WG | M. Boucadair |
Internet-Draft | France Telecom |
Intended status: Standards Track | I. Farrer |
Expires: June 02, 2013 | Deutsche Telekom |
S. Krishnan | |
Ericsson | |
November 29, 2012 |
Unified Softwire CPE
draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-00
Transporting IPv4 packets over IPv6 is a common solution to the problem of IPv4 service continuity over IPv6-only provider networks. A number of differing functional approaches have been developed for this, each having their own specific characteristics. As these approaches share a similar functional architecture and use the same data plane mechanisms, this memo describes a specification whereby a single CPE can interwork with all of the standardized and proposed approaches to providing encapsulated IPv4 in IPv6 services.
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 June 02, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2012 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 (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.
IPv4 service continuity is one of the major technical challenges which must be considered during IPv6 migration. Over the past few years, a number of different approaches have been developed to assist with this problem. These approaches, or modes, exist in order to meet the particular deployment, scaling, addressing and other requirements of different service provider's networks. Section 3 describes these approaches in more detail.
A common feature shared between all of the differing modes is the integration of softwire tunnel end-point functionality into the CPE router. Due to this inherent data plane similarity, a single CPE may be capable of supporting several different approaches. Users may also wish to configure a specific mode of operation.
A service provider's network may also have more than one mode enabled. Reasons for this include supporting diverse CPE clients, simplifying migration between modes or where service requirements define specific supporting softwire architectures.
In order for softwire based services to be successfully established, it is essential that the customer end-node, the service provider end-node and provisioning systems are able to indicate their capabilities and preferred mode of operation.
This memo describes the logic required by both the CPE tunnel end-node and the service provider's provisioning infrastructure so that softwire services can be provided in mixed-mode environments.
The following rationale has been adopted for this document:
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 [RFC2119].
The solutions which have been proposed within the Softwire WG can be categorized into three main functional approaches, as listed below:
All these approaches share a similar architecture, using a tunnel end-node located in a CPE and a tunnel concentrator end-node located in the service provider's network. All use IPv6 as the transport protocol for the delivery of an IPv4 connectivity service using an IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme [RFC2473].
Throughout this document, the different techniques that have been proposed to realize these different functional approaches (DS-Lite, Lw4o6, & MAP-E) are referred to as 'modes'.
Table 1 lists the required functional elements for each solution mode:
Mode | Customer side | Network side |
---|---|---|
DS-Lite | B4 | AFTR |
Lw4o6 | lwB4 | lwAFTR |
MAP | MAP CE | MAP BR |
Table 2 describes each functional element:
Functional Element | Description |
---|---|
B4 | An IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint; the B4 creates a tunnel to a pre-configured remote tunnel endpoint. |
AFTR | Provides both an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint and a NAT44 function implemented in the same node. |
lwB4 | A B4 which supports port-restricted IPv4 addresses. An lwB4 MAY also provide a NAT44 function. |
lwAFTR | An IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint which maintains per-subscriber address binding. Unlike the AFTR, it MUST NOT perform a NAPT44 function. |
MAP CE | A B4 which supports port-restricted IPv4 addresses. It MAY be co-located with a NAT44. A MAP CE forwards IPv4-in-IPv6 packets using provisioned mapping rules to derive the remote tunnel endpoint. |
MAP BR | An IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint. A MAP BR forwards IPv4-in-IPv6 packets following pre-configured mapping rules. |
Table 3 identifies features required at the Customer's side.
Functional Element | IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint | Port-restricted IPv4 | Port-restricted NAT44 |
---|---|---|---|
B4 | Yes | N/A | No |
lwB4 | Yes | Yes | Optional |
MAP-E CE | Yes | Yes | Optional |
Table 4 identifies the provisioning information required for each flavor.
Mode | Provisioning Information |
---|---|
DS-Lite | Remote IPv4-in-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint |
Lw4o6 | Remote IPv4-in-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint |
IPv4 Address | |
Port Set | |
MAP-E | Mapping Rules |
MAP Domain Parameters |
Note: MAP Mapping Rules are translated into the following configuration parameters: Set of Remote IPv4-in-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoints, IPv4 Address and Port Set.
All the aforementioned modes MUST be designed to allow either a full or a shared IPv4 address to be assigned to a customer end-node.
DS-Lite and MAP-E fulfill this requirement. With minor changes, the [I-D.cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite] specification can be updated to assign full IPv4 addresses.
A NAT function within the customer end-node is not required for DS-Lite, while it is optional for both MAP-E and Lw4o6.
When enabled in MAP-E and Lw4o6, the NAT MUST be able to restrict its external translated source ports to within the set of ports provisioned to the Initiator (e.g., Host, CPE).
The generic provisioning logic is designed to meet the following requirements:
This section sketches a generic algorithm to be followed by a CPE supporting one or all the modes listed above. Based on the retrieved information, the CPE will determine which mode to activate.
DHCP-based configuration SHOULD be implemented by the customer end-node using the following two DHCP options:
The customer end-node uses the DHCP Option Request Option (ORO) to request either one or both of these options depending on which modes it is capable of and configured to support.
The DHCP options sent in the response allow the service provider to inform the customer end-node which operating mode to enable.
The following table shows the different DHCP options (and sub-options) that the service provider can supply in a response.
DHCP Option | Stateful Mode | Binding Mode | Stateless Mode |
---|---|---|---|
OPTION_AFTR_NAME | Yes | Yes | Optional |
OPTION_MAP | No | Yes | No |
OPTION_MAP_BIND | |||
OPTION_MAP | No | No | Yes |
OPTION_MAP_RULE | |||
OPTION_MAP_PORTPARAMS | No | Optional | Optional |
The customer side device MUST interpret the received DHCP configuration parameters according to the logic defined in Section 4.3:
From the service providers side, the following rule MUST be followed:
For all modes, the longest prefix match algorithm MUST be enforced to forward outbound IPv4 packets.
Concretely, this algorithm will:
Security considerations discussed in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation] and Section 11 of [RFC6333]should be taken into account.
This document does not require any action from IANA.
[RFC6334] | Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for Dual-Stack Lite", RFC 6334, August 2011. |
[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", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05, November 2012. |
[I-D.ietf-softwire-public-4over6] | Cui, Y, Wu, J, Wu, P, Vautrin, O and Y Lee, "Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04, October 2012. |