Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-softwire-map
draft-ietf-softwire-map
Network Working Group O. Troan, Ed.
Internet-Draft W. Dec
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: September 10, 2015 X. Li
C. Bao
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
S. Matsushima
SoftBank Telecom
T. Murakami
IP Infusion
T. Taylor, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
March 09, 2015
Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP)
draft-ietf-softwire-map-13
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets
across an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, and a generic
mechanism for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and
transport layer ports.
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 10, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
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. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Mapping Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Port mapping algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Basic mapping rule (BMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Forwarding mapping rule (FMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Destinations outside the MAP domain . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. The IPv6 Interface Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. MAP Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. MAP CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. MAP BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Forwarding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Receiving Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. ICMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.3. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.3.1. Fragmentation in the MAP domain . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.3.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP domain borders . 17
8.3.3. Sending IPv4 fragments to the outside . . . . . . . . 18
9. NAT44 Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B. A More Detailed Description of the Derivation of the
Port Mapping Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
B.1. Bit Representation of the Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B.2. GMA examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
1. Introduction
Mapping of IPv4 addresses in IPv6 addresses has been described in
numerous mechanisms dating back to 1995 [RFC1933]. The Automatic
tunneling mechanism described in RFC1933 assigned a globally unique
IPv6 address to a host by combining the host's IPv4 address with a
well-known IPv6 prefix. Given an IPv6 packet with a destination
address with an embedded IPv4 address, a node could automatically
tunnel this packet by extracting the IPv4 tunnel end-point address
from the IPv6 destination address.
There are numerous variations of this idea, described in 6over4
[RFC2529], 6to4 [RFC3056], ISATAP [RFC5214], and 6rd [RFC5969].
The commonalities of all these IPv6 over IPv4 mechanisms are:
o Automatically provisions an IPv6 address for a host or an IPv6
prefix for a site
o Algorithmic or implicit address resolution of tunnel end point
addresses. Given an IPv6 destination address, an IPv4 tunnel
endpoint address can be calculated.
o Embedding of an IPv4 address or part thereof into an IPv6 address.
In later phases of IPv4 to IPv6 migration, it is expected that
IPv6-only networks will be common, while there will still be a need
for residual IPv4 deployment. This document describes a generic
mapping of IPv4 to IPv6, and a mechanism for encapsulating IPv4 over
IPv6.
Just as the IPv6 over IPv4 mechanisms referred to above, the residual
IPv4 over IPv6 mechanism must be capable of:
o Provisioning an IPv4 prefix, an IPv4 address or a shared IPv4
address.
o Algorithmically map between either an IPv4 prefix, an IPv4 address
or a shared IPv4 address and an IPv6 address.
The mapping scheme described here supports encapsulation of IPv4
packets in IPv6 in both mesh and hub-and-spoke topologies, including
address mappings with full independence between IPv6 and IPv4
addresses.
This document describes delivery of IPv4 unicast service across an
IPv6 infrastructure. IPv4 multicast is not considered further in
this document.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
The A+P (Address and Port) architecture of sharing an IPv4 address by
distributing the port space is described in [RFC6346]. Specifically
section 4 of [RFC6346] covers stateless mapping. The corresponding
stateful solution DS-lite is described in [RFC6333]. The motivation
for this work is described in
[I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation].
A companion document defines a DHCPv6 option for provisioning of MAP
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]. Other means of provisioning are
possible. Deployment considerations are described in
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-deployment].
MAP relies on IPv6 and is designed to deliver dual-stack service
while allowing IPv4 to be phased out within the service provider's
(SP) network. The phasing out of IPv4 within the SP network is
independent of whether the end user disables IPv4 service or not.
Further, "greenfield"; IPv6-only networks may use MAP in order to
deliver IPv4 to sites via the IPv6 network.
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 virtual link. A service provider may
deploy a single MAP domain, or may utilize
multiple MAP domains.
MAP rule A set of parameters describing the mapping
between an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address or
shared IPv4 address and an IPv6 prefix or
address. Each 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.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
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: The 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 a 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],
assigned via SLAAC [RFC4862], or configured
manually. It is unique for each CE.
MAP IPv6 address: The IPv6 address used to reach the MAP
function of a CE from other CEs and from BRs.
Rule IPv6 prefix: An IPv6 prefix assigned by a Service Provider
for a 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.
4. Architecture
In accordance with the requirements stated above, the MAP mechanism
can operate with shared IPv4 addresses, full IPv4 addresses or IPv4
prefixes. Operation with shared IPv4 addresses is described here,
and the differences for full IPv4 addresses and prefixes are
described below.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
The MAP mechanism uses existing standard building blocks. The
existing NAPT [RFC2663] on the CE is used with additional support for
restricting transport protocol ports, ICMP identifiers and fragment
identifiers to the configured port-set. For packets outbound from
the private IPv4 network, the CE NAPT MUST translate transport
identifiers (e.g., TCP and UDP port numbers) so that they fall within
the CE's assigned port-range.
The NAPT MUST in turn be connected to a MAP-aware forwarding
function, that does encapsulation / decapsulation of IPv4 packets in
IPv6. MAP supports the encapsulation mode specified in [RFC2473].
In addition MAP specifies an algorithm to do "address resolution"
from an IPv4 address and port to an IPv6 address. This algorithmic
mapping is specified in Section 5.
The MAP architecture described here restricts the use of the shared
IPv4 address to only be used as the global address (outside) of the
NAPT running on the CE. A shared IPv4 address MUST NOT be used to
identify an interface. While it is theoretically possible to make
host stacks and applications port-aware, it would be a drastic change
to the IP model [RFC6250].
For full IPv4 addresses and IPv4 prefixes, the architecture just
described applies with two differences. First, a full IPv4 address
or IPv4 prefix can be used as it is today, e.g., for identifying an
interface or as a DHCP pool, respectively. Secondly, the NAPT is not
required to restrict the ports used on outgoing packets.
This architecture is illustrated in Figure 1.
User N
Private IPv4
| Network
|
O--+---------------O
| | MAP CE |
| +-----+--------+ |
| NAPT44| MAP | |
| +-----+ | |\ ,-------. .------.
| +--------+ | \ ,-' `-. ,-' `-.
O------------------O / \ O---------O / Public \
/ IPv6 only \ | MAP | / IPv4 \
( Network --+ Border +- Network )
\ (MAP Domain) / | Relay | \ /
O------------------O \ / O---------O \ /
| MAP CE | /". ,-' `-. ,-'
| +-----+--------+ | / `----+--' ------'
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
| NAPT44| MAP | |/
| +-----+ | |
| | +--------+ |
O---+--------------O
|
User M
Private IPv4
Network
Figure 1: Network Topology
The MAP BR connects one or more MAP domains to external IPv4
networks.
5. Mapping Algorithm
A MAP node is provisioned with one or more mapping rules.
Mapping rules are used differently depending on their function.
Every MAP node must be provisioned with a Basic mapping rule. This
is used by the node to configure its IPv4 address, IPv4 prefix or
shared IPv4 address. This same basic rule can also be used for
forwarding, where an IPv4 destination address and optionally a
destination port are mapped into an IPv6 address. Additional mapping
rules are specified to allow for multiple different IPv4 sub-nets to
exist within the domain and optimize forwarding between them.
Traffic outside of the domain (i.e., when the destination IPv4
address does not match (using longest matching prefix) any Rule IPv4
prefix in the Rules database) is forwarded to the BR.
There are two types of mapping rules:
1. Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) - mandatory. A CE can be provisioned
with multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes. There can only be one
Basic Mapping Rule per End-user IPv6 prefix. However all CE's
having End-user IPv6 prefixes within (aggregated by) the same
Rule IPv6 prefix may share the same Basic Mapping Rule. In
combination with the End-user IPv6 prefix, the Basic Mapping Rule
is used to derive the IPv4 prefix, address, or shared address and
the PSID assigned to the CE.
2. Forwarding Mapping Rule (FMR) - optional, used for forwarding.
The Basic Mapping Rule may also be a Forwarding Mapping Rule.
Each Forwarding Mapping Rule will result in an entry in the Rules
table for the Rule IPv4 prefix. Given a destination IPv4 address
and port within the MAP domain, a MAP node can use the matching
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
FMR to derive the End-user IPv6 address of the interface through
which that IPv4 destination address and port combination can be
reached. In hub and spoke mode there are no FMRs.
Both mapping rules share the same parameters:
o Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length)
o Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length)
o Rule EA-bits length (in bits)
A MAP node finds its BMR by doing a longest match between the End-
user IPv6 prefix and the Rule IPv6 prefix in the Mapping Rules table.
The rule is then used for IPv4 prefix, address or shared address
assignment.
A MAP IPv6 address is formed from the BMR Rule IPv6 prefix. This
address MUST be assigned to an interface of the MAP node and is used
to terminate all MAP traffic being sent or received to the node.
Port-restricted IPv4 routes are installed in the Rules table for all
the Forwarding Mapping Rules, and a default route is installed to the
MAP BR (see Section 5.4).
Forwarding Mapping Rules are used to allow direct communication
between MAP CEs, known as mesh mode. In hub and spoke mode, there
are no forwarding mapping rules, all traffic MUST be forwarded
directly to the BR.
While an FMR is optional in the sense that a MAP CE MAY be configured
with zero or more FMRs depending on the deployment, all MAP CEs MUST
implement support for both rule types.
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). Using
this technique, but wishing to avoid allocating the system ports
[RFC6335] to the user, one would have to exclude the use of one or
more PSIDs (e.g., PSIDs 0 to 3 in the example just given).
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
When the PSID is embedded in the End-user IPv6 prefix, then to
minimize dependencies between the End-user IPv6 prefix and the
assigned port-set, it is desirable to minimize the restrictions of
possible PSID values. This is achieved by using an infix
representation of the port value. Using such a representation, the
well-known ports are excluded by restrictions on the value of the
high-order bitfield (A) rather than the PSID.
The infix algorithm allocates ports to a given CE as a series of
contiguous ranges spaced at regular intervals throughout the complete
range of possible port-set values.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-----------+-----------+-------+
Ports in | A | PSID | M |
the CE port-set | > 0 | | |
+-----------+-----------+-------+
| a bits | k bits |m bits |
Figure 2: Structure of a port-restricted port field
a bits: The number of offset bits. 6 by default as this excludes the
system ports (0-1023). To guarantee non-overlapping port sets,
the offset 'a' MUST be the same for every MAP CE sharing the same
address.
A: Selects the range of the port number. For 'a' > 0, A MUST be
larger than 0. This ensures that the algorithm excludes the
system ports. For the default value of 'a' (6), the system ports,
are excluded by requiring that A be greater than 0. Smaller
values of 'a' excludes a larger initial range. E.g., 'a' = 4,
will exclude ports 0 - 4095. The interval between initial port
numbers of successive contiguous ranges assigned to the same user
is 2^(16-a).
k bits: The length in bits of the PSID field. To guarantee non-
overlapping port sets, the length 'k' MUST be the same for every
MAP CE sharing the same address. The sharing ratio is 2^k. The
number of ports assigned to the user is 2^(16-k) - 2^m (excluded
ports)
PSID: The Port-Set Identifier (PSID). Different PSID values
guarantee non-overlapping port-sets thanks to the restrictions on
'a' and 'k' stated above, because the PSID always occupies the
same bit positions in the port number.
m bits: The number of contiguous ports is given by 2^m.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
M: Selects the specific port within a particular range specified by
the concatenation of A and the PSID.
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.
Recall from Section 5 that the BMR consists of the following
parameters:
o Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length)
o Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length)
o Rule EA-bits length (in bits)
Figure 3 shows the structure of the complete MAP IPv6 address as
specified in this document.
| 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 3: MAP IPv6 Address Format
The Rule IPv6 prefix (which is 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, 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 identifier (if the End-user IPv6 prefix is
shorter than 64 bits) and the interface identifier as specified in
Section 6.
The MAP subnet identifier is defined to be the first subnet (s bits
set to zero).
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
Define:
r = length of the IPv4 prefix given by the BMR;
o = length of the EA bit field as given by the BMR;
p = length of the IPv4 suffix contained in the EA bit field.
The length 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, is 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. A
length of 48 means that the complete IPv4 address and port is
embedded in the End-user IPv6 prefix (a single port is assigned). A
length of 0 means that no part of the IPv4 address or port is
embedded in the address. 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. This case is shown in Figure 4.
IPv4 prefix:
| r bits | o bits = p bits |
+-------------+---------------------+
| Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix |
+-------------+---------------------+
| < 32 bits |
Figure 4: IPv4 prefix
If o + r is equal to 32, then a full IPv4 address is to be assigned.
The address is created by concatenating the Rule IPv4 prefix and the
EA-bits. This case is shown in Figure 5.
Complete IPv4 address:
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
| r bits | o bits = p bits |
+-------------+---------------------+
| Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix |
+-------------+---------------------+
| 32 bits |
Figure 5: Complete IPv4 address
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: q = o - p.
Shared IPv4 address:
| r bits | p bits | | q bits |
+-------------+---------------------+ +------------+
| Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix | |Port-Set ID |
+-------------+---------------------+ +------------+
| 32 bits |
Figure 6: Shared IPv4 address
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.
5.3. Forwarding mapping rule (FMR)
The Forwarding Mapping Rule is optional, and used in mesh mode to
enable direct CE to CE connectivity.
On adding an FMR rule, an IPv4 route is installed in the Rules table
for the Rule IPv4 prefix.
| 32 bits | | 16 bits |
+--------------------------+ +-------------------+
| IPv4 destination address | | IPv4 dest port |
+--------------------------+ +-------------------+
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
: : ___/ :
| p bits | / q bits :
+-----------+ +------------+
|IPv4 suffix| |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: Derivation of MAP IPv6 address
See Appendix A for an example of the Forwarding Mapping Rule.
5.4. Destinations outside the MAP domain
IPv4 traffic between MAP nodes that are all within one MAP domain is
encapsulated in IPv6, with the sender's MAP IPv6 address as the IPv6
source address and the receiving MAP node's MAP IPv6 address as the
IPv6 destination address. To reach IPv4 destinations outside of the
MAP domain, traffic is also encapsulated in IPv6, but the destination
IPv6 address is set to the configured IPv6 address of the MAP BR.
On the CE, the path to the BR can be represented as a point to point
IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel [RFC2473] with the source address of the tunnel
being the CE's MAP IPv6 address and the BR IPv6 address as the remote
tunnel address. When MAP is enabled, a typical CE router will
install a default IPv4 route to the BR.
The BR forwards traffic received from the outside to CE's using the
normal MAP forwarding rules.
6. 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 |
+--------+----+-----------+--------+
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
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.
7. MAP Configuration
For a given MAP domain, the BR and CE MUST be configured with the
following MAP elements. The configured values for these elements are
identical for all CEs and BRs within a given MAP domain.
o The Basic Mapping Rule and optionally the Forwarding Mapping
Rules, including the Rule IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv4 prefix, and
Length of EA bits
o Hub and spoke mode or Mesh mode. (If all traffic should be sent
to the BR, or if direct CE to CE traffic should be supported).
In addition the MAP CE MUST be configured with the IPv6 address(es)
of the MAP BR (Section 5.4).
7.1. MAP CE
The MAP elements are set to values that are the same across all CEs
within a MAP domain. The values may be configured in a variety of
manners, including provisioning methods such as the Broadband Forum's
"TR-69" Residential Gateway management interface, an XML-based object
retrieved after IPv6 connectivity is established, or manual
configuration by an administrator. IPv6 DHCP options for MAP
configuration is defined in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]. Other
configuration and management methods may use the format described by
this option for consistency and convenience of implementation on CEs
that support multiple configuration methods.
The only remaining provisioning information the CE requires in order
to calculate the MAP IPv4 address and enable IPv4 connectivity is the
IPv6 prefix for the CE. The End-user IPv6 prefix is configured as
part of obtaining IPv6 Internet access.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
The MAP provisioning parameters, and hence the IPv4 service itself,
are tied to the associated End-user IPv6 prefix lifetime; thus, the
MAP service is also tied to this in terms of authorization,
accounting, etc.
A single MAP CE MAY be connected to more than one MAP domain, just as
any router may have more than one IPv4-enabled service provider
facing interface and more than one set of associated addresses
assigned by DHCP. Each domain a given CE operates within would
require its own set of MAP configuration elements and would generate
its own IPv4 address. Each MAP domain requires a distinct End-user
IPv6 prefix.
The MAP DHCP option is specified in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp].
7.2. MAP BR
The MAP BR MUST be configured with corresponding mapping rules for
each MAP domain which it is acting as BR for.
For increased reliability and load balancing, the BR IPv6 address MAY
be an anycast address shared across a given MAP domain. As MAP is
stateless, any BR may be used at any time. If the BR IPv6 address is
anycast the relay MUST use this anycast IPv6 address as the source
address in packets relayed to CEs.
Since MAP uses provider address space, no specific routes need to be
advertised externally for MAP to operate, neither in IPv6 nor IPv4
BGP. However, if anycast is used for the MAP IPv6 relays, the
anycast addresses must be advertised in the service provider's IGP.
8. Forwarding Considerations
Figure 1 depicts the overall MAP architecture with IPv4 users (N and
M) networks connected to a routed IPv6 network.
MAP uses Encapsulation mode as specified in [RFC2473].
For a shared IPv4 address, a MAP CE forwarding IPv4 packets from the
LAN performs NAT44 functions first and creates appropriate NAT44
bindings. The resulting IPv4 packets MUST contain the source IPv4
address and source transport identifiers specified by the MAP
provisioning parameters. The IPv4 packet is forwarded using the CE's
MAP forwarding function. The IPv6 source and destination addresses
MUST then be derived as per Section 5 of this draft.
8.1. Receiving Rules
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
A MAP CE receiving an IPv6 packet to its MAP IPv6 address sends this
packet to the CE's MAP function where it is decapsulated. The
resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE's NAT44 function
where it is handled according to the NAT's translation table.
A MAP BR receiving IPv6 packets selects a best matching MAP domain
rule (Rule IPv6 prefix) based on a longest address match of the
packet's IPv6 source address, as well as a match of the packet
destination address against the configured BR IPv6 address(es). The
selected MAP rule allows the BR to determine the EA-bits from the
source IPv6 address.
To prevent spoofing of IPv4 addresses, any MAP node (CE and BR) MUST
perform the following validation upon reception of a packet. First,
the embedded IPv4 address or prefix, as well as PSID (if any), are
extracted from the source IPv6 address using the matching MAP rule.
These represent the range of what is acceptable as source IPv4
address and port. Secondly, the node extracts the source IPv4
address and port from the IPv4 packet encapsulated inside the IPv6
packet. If they are found to be outside the acceptable range, the
packet MUST be silently discard and a counter incremented to indicate
that a potential spoofing attack may be underway. The source
validation checks just described are not done for packets whose
source IPv6 address is that of the BR (BR IPv6 address).
By default, the CE router MUST drop packets received on the MAP
virtual interface (i.e., after decapsulation of IPv6) for IPv4
destinations not for its own IPv4 shared address, full IPv4 address
or IPv4 prefix.
8.2. ICMP
ICMP message should be supported in MAP domain. Hence, the NAT44 in
MAP CE MUST implement the behavior for ICMP message conforming to the
best current practice documented in [RFC5508].
If a MAP CE receives an ICMP message having ICMP identifier field in
ICMP header, NAT44 in the MAP CE MUST rewrite this field to a
specific value assigned from the port set. BR and other CEs must
handle this field similar to the port number in the TCP/UDP header
upon receiving the ICMP message with ICMP identifier field.
If a MAP node receives an ICMP error message without the ICMP
identifier field for errors that is detected inside a IPv6 tunnel, a
node should relay the ICMP error message to the original source.
This behavior SHOULD be implemented conforming to the section 8 of
[RFC2473].
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
8.3. 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.
8.3.1. Fragmentation in the MAP domain
Encapsulating an IPv4 packet to carry it across the MAP domain will
increase its size (typically by 40 bytes). It is strongly
recommended that the MTU in the MAP domain be well managed and that
the IPv6 MTU on the CE WAN side interface be set so that no
fragmentation occurs within the boundary of the MAP domain.
Fragmentation on MAP domain entry is described in section 7.2 of
[RFC2473].
The use of an anycast source address could lead to an ICMP error
message generated on the path being sent to a different BR.
Therefore, using dynamic tunnel MTU Section 6.7 of [RFC2473] is
subject to IPv6 Path MTU black-holes. A MAP BR using an anycast
source address SHOULD NOT by default use Path MTU discovery across
the MAP domain.
Multiple BRs using the same anycast source address could send
fragmented packets to the same CE at the same time. If the
fragmented packets from different BRs happen to use the same fragment
ID, incorrect reassembly might occur. See [RFC4459] for an analysis
of the problem. Section 3.4 suggests solving the problem by
fragmenting the inner packet.
8.3.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP domain borders
Forwarding of an IPv4 packet received from the outside of the MAP
domain requires the IPv4 destination address and the transport
protocol destination port. The transport protocol information is
only available in the first fragment received. As described in
section 5.3.3 of [RFC6346] a MAP node receiving an IPv4 fragmented
packet from outside has to reassemble the packet before sending the
packet onto the MAP link. If the first packet received contains the
transport protocol information, it is possible to optimize this
behavior by using a cache and forwarding the fragments unchanged.
Implementers of MAP should be aware that there are a number of well-
known attacks against IP fragmentation; see [RFC1858] and [RFC3128].
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
Implementers should also be aware of additional issues with
reassembling packets at high rates, as described in [RFC4963].
8.3.3. Sending IPv4 fragments to the outside
If two IPv4 host behind two different MAP CEs 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 could
rewrite the IPv4 fragmentation identifier to be within its allocated
port-set, if the resulting fragment identifier space was large enough
related to the rate fragments was sent. However, splitting the
identifier space in this fashion would increase the probability of
reassembly collision for all connections through the CPE. See also
[RFC6864]
9. NAT44 Considerations
The NAT44 implemented in the MAP CE SHOULD conform with the behavior
and best current practice documented in [RFC4787], [RFC5508], and
[RFC5382]. In MAP address sharing mode (determined by the MAP domain
/rule configuration parameters) the operation of the NAT44 MUST be
restricted to the available port numbers derived via the basic
mapping rule.
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 deployment, 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
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
exist with MAP because each BRs checks that the IPv6 source
address of a received IPv6 packet is a CE address based on
Forwarding Mapping Rule.
Attacks facilitated by restricted port set: From hosts
that are not subject to ingress filtering of [RFC2827], some
attacks are possible by an attacker injecting spoofed packets
during ongoing transport connections ([RFC4953], [RFC5961],
[RFC6056]. The attacks depend on guessing which ports are
currently used by target hosts, and using an unrestricted port-set
is preferable, i.e., using native IPv6 connections that are not
subject to MAP port range restrictions. To minimize this type of
attacks when using a restricted port-set, the MAP CE's NAT44
filtering behavior SHOULD be "Address-Dependent Filtering
[RFC4787], Section 5. Furthermore, the MAP CEs SHOULD use a DNS
transport proxy [RFC5625] function to handle DNS traffic, and
source such traffic from IPv6 interfaces not assigned to MAP.
[RFC6269] outlines general issues with IPv4 address sharing.
12. Contributors
This document is the result of the IETF Softwire MAP design team
effort and numerous previous individual contributions in this area:
Chongfeng Xie (China Telecom)
Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street Beijing 100035
People's Republic of China
Phone: +86-10-58552116
Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn
Qiong Sun (China Telecom)
Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street Beijing 100035
People's Republic of China
Phone: +86-10-58552936
Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
Gang Chen (China Mobile)
53A,Xibianmennei Ave. Beijing 100053
People's Republic of China
Email: chengang@chinamobile.com
Yu Zhai
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
Beijing 100084
People's Republic of China
Email: jacky.zhai@gmail.com
Wentao Shang (CERNET Center/Tsinghua University)
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084
People's Republic of China
Email: wentaoshang@gmail.com
Guoliang Han (CERNET Center/Tsinghua University)
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084
People's Republic of China
Email: bupthgl@gmail.com
Rajiv Asati (Cisco Systems)
7025-6 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park NC 27709 USA
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
13. Acknowledgments
This document is based on the ideas of many, including Masakazu
Asama, Mohamed Boucadair, Gang Chen, Maoke Chen, Wojciech Dec,
Xiaohong Deng, Jouni Korhonen, Tomasz Mrugalski, Jacni Qin, Chunfa
Sun, Qiong Sun, and Leaf Yeh. The authors want in particular to
recognize Remi Despres, who has tirelessly worked on generalized
mechanisms for stateless address mapping.
The authors would like to thank Lichun Bao, Guillaume Gottard, Dan
Wing, Jan Zorz, Necj Scoberne, Tina Tsou, Kristian Poscic, and
especially Tom Taylor and Simon Perreault for the thorough review and
comments of this document. Useful IETF Last Call comments were
received from Brian Weis and Lei Yan.
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.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
[RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines", BCP
152, RFC 5625, August 2009.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-deployment]
Qiong, Q., Chen, M., Chen, G., Tsou, T., and S. Perreault,
"Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) - Deployment
Considerations", draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-03
(work in progress), October 2013.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]
Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Dec, W., Bao, C.,
leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com, l., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6 Options
for configuration of Softwire Address and Port Mapped
Clients", draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-06 (work in
progress), November 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.
[RFC0897] Postel, J., "Domain name system implementation schedule",
RFC 897, February 1984.
[RFC1858] Ziemba, G., Reed, D., and P. Traina, "Security
Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858,
October 1995.
[RFC1933] Gilligan, R. and E. Nordmark, "Transition Mechanisms for
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 1933, April 1996.
[RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.
[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.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
[RFC3128] Miller, I., "Protection Against a Variant of the Tiny
Fragment Attack (RFC 1858)", RFC 3128, June 2001.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, April 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.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4953] Touch, J., "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks", RFC
4953, July 2007.
[RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, July 2007.
[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
March 2008.
[RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
RFC 5382, October 2008.
[RFC5508] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
April 2009.
[RFC5961] Ramaiah, A., Stewart, R., and M. Dalal, "Improving TCP's
Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks", RFC 5961, August
2010.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification", RFC
5969, August 2010.
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056, January
2011.
[RFC6250] Thaler, D., "Evolution of the IP Model", RFC 6250, 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.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6335] 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", BCP 165, RFC
6335, August 2011.
[RFC6346] Bush, R., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the
IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346, August 2011.
[RFC6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
RFC 6864, February 2013.
Appendix A. Examples
Example 1 - Basic Mapping Rule
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
Given the MAP domain information and an IPv6 address of
an endpoint:
End-user IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0000::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
PSID length: (16 - (32 - 24) = 8. (Sharing ratio of 256)
PSID offset: 6 (default)
A MAP node (CE or BR) can via the BMR, or equivalent FMR,
determine the IPv4 address and port-set as shown below:
EA bits offset: 40
IPv4 suffix bits (p) Length of IPv4 address (32) -
IPv4 prefix length (24) = 8
IPv4 address: 192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
PSID start: 40 + p = 40 + 8 = 48
PSID length: o - p = (56 - 40) - 8 = 8
PSID: 0x34
Available ports (63 ranges) : 1232-1235, 2256-2259, ...... ,
63696-63699, 64720-64723
The BMR information allows a MAP CE to determine (complete)
its IPv6 address within the indicated IPv6 prefix.
IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
Example 2 - BR:
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
Another example can be made of a MAP 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: 1232
Forwarding Mapping Rule: {2001:db8::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
IPv6 address of MAP BR: 2001:db8:ffff::1
The above information allows the BR to derive as follows
the mapped destination IPv6 address for the corresponding
MAP CE, and also the mapped source IPv6 address for
the IPv4 source address.
IPv4 suffix bits (p): 32 - 24 = 8 (18 (0x12))
PSID length: 8
PSID: 0x34 (1232)
The resulting IPv6 packet will have the following key fields:
IPv6 source address: 2001:db8:ffff::1
IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
Example 3 - Forwarding Mapping Rule:
An IPv4 host behind the MAP CE (addressed as per the previous
examples) corresponding with IPv4 host 1.2.3.4 will have its
packets encapsulated by IPv6 using the IPv6 address of the BR
configured on the MAP CE as follows:
IPv6 address of BR: 2001:db8:ffff::1
IPv4 source address: 192.0.2.18
IPv4 destination address: 1.2.3.4
IPv4 source port: 1232
IPv4 destination port: 80
MAP CE IPv6 source address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:ffff::1
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
Example 4 - Rule with no embedded address bits and no address sharing
End-User IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
192.0.2.18/32 (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: 192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
PSID start: 0
PSID length: 0
PSID: null
The BMR information allows a MAP CE also to determine (complete)
its full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP
interface identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address).
IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0000
Example 5 - Rule with no embedded address bits and address sharing
(sharing ratio 256)
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
End-User IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
192.0.2.18/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
0 (Rule EA-bits length)}
PSID length: 8. (From DHCP. Sharing ratio of 256)
PSID offset: 6 (Default)
PSID : 0x34 (From DHCP.)
A MAP node can via the Basic Mapping Rule 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: 192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
PSID offset: 6
PSID length: 8
PSID: 0x34
Available ports (63 ranges) : 1232-1235, 2256-2259, ...... ,
63696-63699, 64720-64723
The Basic Mapping Rule information allows a MAP CE also to
determine (complete) its full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6
prefix with the MAP interface identifier (that embeds the IPv4
address and PSID).
IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
Note that the IPv4 address and PSID is not derived from the IPv6
prefix assigned to the CE, but provisioned separately using
e.g., DHCP.
Appendix B. A More Detailed Description of the Derivation of the Port
Mapping Algorithm
This Appendix describes how the port mapping algorithm described in
Section 5.1 was derived. The algorithm is used in domains whose
rules allow IPv4 address sharing.
The basic requirement for a port mapping algorithm is that the port-
sets it assigns to different MAP CEs MUST be non-overlapping. A
number of other requirements guided the choice of the algorithm:
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
o In keeping with the general MAP algorithm the port-set MUST be
derivable from a port-set identifier (PSID) that can be embedded
in the End-user IPv6 prefix.
o The mapping MUST be reversible, such that, given the port number,
the PSID of the port-set to which it belongs can be quickly
derived.
o The algorithm MUST allow a broad range of address sharing ratios.
o It SHOULD be possible to exclude subsets of the complete port
numbering space from assignment. Most operators would exclude the
system ports (0-1023). A conservative operator might exclude all
but the transient ports (49152-65535).
o The effect of port exclusion on the possible values of the End-
user IPv6 prefix (i.e., due to restrictions on the PSID value)
SHOULD be minimized.
o For administrative simplicity, the algorithm SHOULD allocate the
the same or almost the same number of ports to each CE sharing a
given IPv4 address.
The two extreme cases that an algorithm satisfying those conditions
might support are: (1) the port numbers are not contiguous for each
PSID, but uniformly distributed across the allowed port range; (2)
the port numbers are contiguous in a single range for each PSID. The
port mapping algorithm proposed here is called the Generalized
Modulus Algorithm (GMA) and supports both these cases.
For a given IPv4 address sharing ratio (R) and the maximum number of
contiguous ports (M) in a port-set, the GMA is defined as:
a. The port numbers (P) corresponding to a given PSID are generated
by:
(1) ... P = (R * M) * i + M * PSID + j
where i and j are indices and the ranges of i, j, and the PSID
are discussed in a moment.
b. For any given port number P, the PSID is calculated as:
(2) ... PSID = trunc((P modulo (R * M)) / M)
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
where trunc() is the operation of rounding down to the nearest
integer.
Formula (1) can be interpreted as follows. First, the available port
space is divided into blocks of size R * M. Each block is divided
into R individual ranges of length M. The index i in formula (1)
selects a block, PSID selects a range within that block, and the
index j selects a specific port value within the range. On the basis
of this interpretation:
o i ranges from ceil(N / (R * M)) to trunc(65536/(R * M)) - 1, where
ceil is the operation of rounding up to the nearest integer and N
is the number of ports (e.g., 1024) excluded from the lower end of
the range. That is, any block containing excluded values is
discarded at the lower end, and if the final block has fewer than
R * M values it is discarded. This ensures that the same number
of ports is assigned to every PSID.
o PSID ranges from 0 to R - 1;
o j ranges from 0 to M - 1.
B.1. Bit Representation of the Algorithm
If R and M are powers of 2 (R = 2^k, M = 2^m), formula (1) translates
to a computationally convenient structure for any port number
represented as a 16-bit binary number. This structure is shown in
Figure 9.
0 8 15
+---------------+----------+------+-------------------+
| P |
----------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| i | PSID | j |
+---------------+----------+------+-------------------+
|<----a bits--->|<-----k bits---->|<------m bits----->|
Figure 9: Bit Representation of a Port Number
As shown in the figure, the index value i of formula (1) is given by
the first a = 16 - k - m bits of the port number. The PSID value is
given by the next k bits, and the index value j is given by the last
m bits.
Because the PSID is always in the same position in the port number
and always the same length, different PSID values are guaranteed to
generate different sets of port numbers. In the reverse direction,
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
the generating PSID can be extracted from any port number by a bit
mask operation.
Note that when M and R are powers of 2, 65536 divides evenly by R *
M. Hence the final block is complete and the upper bound on i is
exactly 65536/(R * M) - 1. The lower bound on i is still the minimum
required to ensure that the required set of ports is excluded. No
port numbers are wasted through discarding of blocks at the lower end
if block size R * M is a factor of N, the number of ports to be
excluded.
As a final note, the number of blocks into which the range 0-65535 is
being divided in the above representation is given by 2^a. Hence the
case where a = 0 can be interpreted as one where the complete range
has been divided into a single block, and individual port-sets are
contained in contiguous ranges in that block. We cannot throw away
the whole block in that case, so port exclusion has to be achieved by
putting a lower bound equal to ceil(N / M) on the allowed set of PSID
values instead.
B.2. GMA examples
For example, for R = 256, PSID = 0, offset: a = 6 and PSID length: k
= 8 bits
Available ports (63 ranges) : 1024-1027, 2048-2051, ...... ,
63488-63491, 64512-64515
Example 1: with offset = 6 (a = 6)
For example, for R = 64, PSID = 0, a = 0 (PSID offset = 0 and PSID
length = 6 bits), no port exclusion:
Available ports (1 range) : 0-1023
Example 2: with offset = 0 (a = 0) and N = 0
Authors' Addresses
Ole Troan (editor)
Cisco Systems
Philip Pedersens vei 1
Lysaker 1366
Norway
Email: ot@cisco.com
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
Wojciech Dec
Cisco Systems
Haarlerbergpark Haarlerbergweg 13-19
Amsterdam, NOORD-HOLLAND 1101 CH
Netherlands
Email: wdec@cisco.com
Xing Li
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
People's Republic of China
Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
Congxiao Bao
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
People's Republic of China
Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
Satoru Matsushima
SoftBank Telecom
1-9-1 Higashi-Shinbashi, Munato-ku
Tokyo
Japan
Email: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp
Tetsuya Murakami
IP Infusion
1188 East Arques Avenue
Sunnyvale
USA
Email: tetsuya@ipinfusion.com
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft MAP March 2015
Tom Taylor (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Ottawa
Canada
Email: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com
Troan, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 32]
