Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)
draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-02
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 | 2013-07-02 | ||
| 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-02
Network Working Group X. Li
Internet-Draft C. Bao
Intended status: Experimental CERNET Center/Tsinghua
Expires: January 3, 2014 University
W. Dec, Ed.
O. Troan
Cisco Systems
S. Matsushima
SoftBank Telecom
T. Murakami
IP Infusion
July 2, 2013
Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)
draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-02
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 January 3, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Basic mapping rule (BMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Forwarding mapping rule (FMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Default mapping rule (DMR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. The IPv6 Interface Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. MAP-T Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. MAP CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. MAP BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. MAP-T Packet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4. IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. ICMP Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. Fragmentation in the MAP domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP domain borders . . . . 20
9.3. Sending IPv4 fragments to the outside . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Usage Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1. EA-bit length set to 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.2. Mesh and Hub and spoke modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.3. Communication with IPv6 servers in the MAP-T domain . . . 21
10.4. Compatibility with other NAT64 solutions . . . . . . . . . 21
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Examples of MAP-T translation . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix B. Port mapping algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
1. Introduction
Experiences from initial IPv6-only deployments indicate that
successful transitions to IPv6 can happen while allowing for
continued support of legacy IPv4 users connected at the boundaries of
that IPv6 domain. This requires the ability to support shared IPv4
address use, while using IPv6 transport and operational practices in
the domain in a manner that ultimately minimizes to the operator any
differences between IPv6 and IPv4 users connected to that domain.
The use of an double NAT64 translation based solutions, which
transform IPv4 to IPv6 traffic at domain boundaries, is an optimal
way to address these requirements, especially in combination with
stateless translation techniques that seek to minimize operational
challenges outlined in [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation].
The Mapping of Address and Port - Translation (MAP-T) solution
specified in this document is such a double NAT64 based solution,
that builds on existing stateless NAT64 techniques specified in
[RFC6145], along with a stateless algorithmic address & transport
layer port mapping scheme, to allow the sharing of IPv4 addresses
across an IPv6 network. The MAP-T solution is closely related to
MAP-E [I-D.ietf-softwire-map], with both utilizing the same address
and port mapping method, but differing in their choice of IPv6 domain
transport, i.e. Translation [RFC6145] for MAP-T and encapsulation
[RFC2473] for MAP-E. The translation mode is deemed particularly
useful for environments where the encapsulation overhead, or IPv6
oriented practices (e.g. use of IPv6 only servers, or IPv6 traffic
classification) requirements, or both of these factors, contribute to
an encapsulation solution being not attractive. These scenarios are
presented in [I-D.maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios]
A companion document, applicable to both MAP-T and MAP-E, defines the
DHCPv6 options for MAP provisioning
[I-D.mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option].
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Terminology
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
MAP domain: One or more MAP CEs and BRs connected to the
same IPv6 network sharing a common MAP Rule
set. A service provider may deploy a single
MAP domain, or may utilize multiple MAP
domains.
MAP Rule: A set of parameters describing the mapping
between an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address or
shared IPv4 address and an IPv6 prefix or
address. Each MAP domain uses a different
mapping rule set.
MAP 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],
assigned via SLAAC [RFC4862], or configured
manually. It is unique for each CE.
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
MAP IPv6 address: The IPv6 address used to reach the MAP
function of a CE from other CEs and from BRs.
Rule IPv6 prefix: An IPv6 prefix assigned by a Service Provider
for a MAP rule.
Rule IPv4 prefix: An IPv4 prefix assigned by a Service Provider
for a MAP rule.
Embedded Address (EA) bits: The IPv4 EA-bits in the IPv6 address
identify an IPv4 prefix/address (or part
thereof) or a shared IPv4 address (or part
thereof) and a port-set identifier.
4. Architecture
Figure 1 depicts the overall MAP-T architecture, which sees any
number of IPv4 users (N and M used as examples), connected by means
of MAP-T CEs to an IPv6 network that is equipped with one or more
MAP-T BR. The CEs and BRs form the MAP-T Domain, by means of
configuration that they share.
Functionally the MAP-T CE and BR utilize and extend some well
established technical building blocks to allow the IPv4 users to
correspond with nodes on the Public IPv4 network, or IPv6 network as
follows:
o A regular (NAT44) NAPT [RFC2663] function on a MAP CE is extended
with support for restricting the allowable TCP/UDP ports for a
given IPv4 address. The IPv4 address and port range used are
determined by the MAP provisioning process and identical to MAP-E
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map].
o A standard stateless NAT64 function [RFC6145] is extended to allow
stateless mapping of IPv4 and transport layer port ranges to IPv6
address space. This algorithmic mapping is specified in section
5.
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 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 )
\ / | Relay |\ /
O------------------O \ / O---------O \ /
| MAP-T CE | ;". ,-' `-. ,-'
| +-----+--------+ | ," `----+--' ------'
| NAPT44| MAP-T | |, |
| +-----+ | | IPv6 node(s)
| | +--------+ | (w/ v4 mapped
O---.--------------O address)
|
User M
Private IPv4
Network
Figure 1: MAP-T Architecture
Each MAP-T CE is configured by means of MAP procedures with an IPv4
address and port-range, and is responsible for translating between a
given users' private IPv4 space and the CE's MAP derived IPv4
address, as well as adapting traffic between IPv4 and IPv6 using
NAT64 procedures that are in accordance with the MAP Rules applicable
for a given domain. The MAP procedures can operate with CE's using a
shared IPv4 address, full IPv4 addresses or IPv4 prefixes, and place
no assumption on the IPv6 addressing, other than an IPv6 prefix of
adequate size being allocated.
The MAP-T BR is responsible for connecting one or more MAP-T domains
to external IPv4 networks, using stateless NAT64 as extended by the
MAP rules in this document, to relay traffic between the two.
The intended role for NAT64 technology in the architecture is two
fold. Firstly, it is intended to allow the IPv6 network to focus on
IPv6 operational procedures with minimal consideration of IPv4-only
nodes attached to the domain. Secondly, it is intended to allow
IPv4-only nodes to correspond directly with IPv6-only nodes, provided
they have an IPv4 mapped IPv6 address belonging to the IPv6 prefix
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
assigned to the MAP-T domain (as per [RFC6052]).
The detailed operation of the above mechanism is governed by means of
MAP Rules and an address+port mapping algorithm covered in Section 5.
Section 7 describes how the mechanism is used for packet forwarding
operations.
5. Mapping Rules
A MAP node is provisioned with one or more mapping rules that govern
the way an IPv4 address and port are mapped between the IPv4 and IPv6
domains, as well specific or default forwarding behaviour. Three
specific types of mapping rules are defined:
1. Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) - used for determining the CE's IPv4
address and/or port set, as well as determining the MAP IPv6
address that the CE is to use. For a given end-user IPv6 prefix
there can be only one BMR. The BMR is defined out of the
following parameters:
* Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length)
* Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length)
* Rule EA-bits length (in bits)
2. Forwarding Mapping Rule - used for setting up forwarding between
CEs in the MAP domain (a.k.a. Mesh mode). Each Forwarding
Mapping Rule will result in an entry in the mapping rules table
for the Rule IPv4 prefix + a given port range, i.e. Specific
IPv4 + port routes.The FMR consists of the following parameters,
which are shared with the BMR:
* Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length)
* Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length)
* Rule EA-bits length (in bits)
3. Default Mapping Rule - used for mapping and forwarding to
destinations outside the MAP domain, i.e. a default route for the
MAP domain leading to the MAP BR. It consists of:
* The Pv6 prefix (including length) of the
* Rule BR IPv4 address (Optional - can be used for testing a
BR's reachability)
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
By default, every MAP node belonging to a MAP domain node, MUST be
provisioned with a Basic Mapping Rule (BMR). A MAP node finds its
Basic Mapping Rule 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-aware IPv4 entries in the Rules table are installed for all the
Forwarding Mapping Rules and an default route to the MAP BR as per
the DMR (see section Section 5). While there can be only one Default
Mapping Rule within a MAP domain, however there can be multiple BR's
operating on that 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, and all traffic is forwarded from the CE to the BR
by means of the DMR.
The following subsections specify the MAP algorithm and its use of
Rules.
5.1. Port mapping algorithm
The port mapping algorithm is used in domains whose BMR allows 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
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports] to a give CE, one would have to exclude
the use of one or more PSIDs (e.g., PSIDs 0 to 3 in the example just
given).
As will be seen shortly, the PSID forms a portion of the End-user
IPv6 prefix. To minimise dependencies between the End-user IPv6
prefix and the assigned port set, it is desirable to minimize the
restrictions on the 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 first bit field (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
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
range of possible port set values.
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 Selects the range of the port number. For a > 0, A MUST be larger
than 0. This ensures that the algorithm excludes the system
ports. For this value of a, the system ports, but no others, are
excluded by requiring that A be greater than 0. For smaller
values of a, A still has to be greater than 0, but this excludes
ports above 1023. For larger values of a, the minimum value of A
has to be higher to exclude all the system ports. The interval
between successive contiguous ranges assigned to the same user is
2^a.
a-bits The number of offset bits. The default Offset bits (a) are:
6. To simplify the port mapping algorithm the defaults are chosen
so that the PSID field starts on a nibble boundary and the
excluded port range (0-1023) is extended to 0-4095.
PSID The Port Set Identifier. Different Port-Set Identifiers (PSID)
MUST have non-overlapping port-sets.
k-bits The length in bits of the PSID field. The sharing ratio is
k^2. The number of ports assigned to the user is 2^(16-k) - 2^m
(excluded ports)
M Selects the specific port within the particular range specified by
the concatenation of A and the PSID.
m bits The contiguous port size, i.e. the number of contiguous ports
allocated to a given PSID. The number of contiguous ports is
given by 2^m.
5.2. Basic mapping rule (BMR)
The Basic Mapping Rule is mandatory, and is used by the CE to derive
its IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address or shared IPv4 address and associated
port-range in conjunction with the information in the end-user IPv6
prefix. Recall from Section 5 that the BMR consists of the following
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
parameters:
o Rule IPv6 prefix, of a length n.
o Rule IPv4 prefix, of a length r.
o Rule EA-bits of length o.
Figure 3 shows the structure of the complete MAP IPv6 address of a CE
as specified in this document, and its relation to the information
contained in the BMR and End-user IP6 prefix. A MAP CE 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). For End-user
IPv6 prefixes longer than 64 bits, no subnet id is used.
| n bits | o bits | s bits | 128-n-o-s bits |
+--------------------+-----------+---------+------------+----------+
| Rule IPv6 prefix | EA bits |subnet ID| interface ID |
+--------------------+-----------+---------+-----------------------+
|<--- End-user IPv6 prefix --->|
Figure 3: IPv6 address format
The MAP CE's IPv4 address + port set id are determined by
concatenating the information in the BMR, the r bits of the Rule IPv4
prefix, with o bits of information, termed the EA-bits, derived from
the End-user IPv6 prefix that is assigned to the CE.
The n bit Rule IPv6 prefix, expressed in the BMR, is the part of the
End-user IPv6 prefix that is common among all CEs using the same
Basic Mapping Rule within the MAP domain. Similarly, the Rule IPv4
prefix of length r is the IPv4 prefix common among all CEs using the
same BMR within the MAP domain. The combination of Rule IPv4 prefix
r, with the EA bits of length o, which is unique for a given CE,
encodes the CE's IPv4 address and port set-id, if present. 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. Examples of these and other cases are given in
Appendix A.
For a given BMR, if o + r < 32 (length of the IPv4 address in bits),
then an IPv4 prefix is being intended for use by the BMR. This case
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
is shown in Figure 4.
| r 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.
| r 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.
| r bits | p bits | | q bits |
+-------------+---------------------+ +------------+
| Rule IPv4 | IPv4 Address suffix | |Port-Set ID |
+-------------+---------------------+ +------------+
| 32 bits |
Figure 6: Shared IPv4 address
It should be noted that the length r MAY be zero, in which case the
complete IPv4 address or prefix is encoded in the EA bits. Similarly
the length of o MAY, in which case no part of the CE's IPv6 end-user
prefix is used to derive the CE's IPv4 address. To create a complete
IPv4 address (or prefix), the IPv4 address suffix (p) from the EA
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
bits, is concatenated with the Rule IPv4 prefix (r bits).
The BMR is provisioned to the CE by means (e.g. a DHCPv6 option) not
specified in this document.
See Appendix A for an example of the Basic Mapping Rule.
5.3. Forwarding mapping rule (FMR)
The Forwarding Mapping Rule is an optional rule used in mesh mode to
enable direct CE to CE connectivity.
The processing of an FMR rule results in a route entry being
installed in a rules table on the processing MAP device for the IPv4
Rule prefix and any associated port range. The "next hop" of such a
route is the MAP transformation defined by the rule's key elements:
o The Rule IPv6 prefix, of a length n.
o The Rule IPv4 prefix, of a length r.
o The Rule EA-bits of length o.
On forwarding an IPv4 packet, a best matching prefix look up is done
in the rules table and the correct FMR is chosen. The IPv6
destination address is derived from the destination IPv4 + port in
combination with the rule's parameters as exemplified in Figure 7.
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
| 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)
IPv4 traffic between MAP-T nodes that are all within one MAP domain
is translated to IPv6, with the senders MAP IPv6 address as the IPv6
source address and the receiving MAP node's MAP IPv6 address as the
IPv6 destination address. To reach destinations outside the MAP-T
domain and/or for the case when the MAP domain is defined to be
composed out of a single CE and BR, the Default Mapping rule is used.
The DMR is specified in terms of the BR IPv6 prefix that MAP-T CEs
will use for mapping an IPv4 destination address.
Default Mapping Rule:
{2001:db8:0001::/Prefix-length (Rule IPv6 prefix),
0.0.0.0/0 (Rule IPv4 prefix)}
Example: Default Mapping Rule
It is recommended that the BR prefix-length SHOULD be by default 64
bits long, and in any case MUST NOT exceed 96 bits. The mapping of
the IPv4 destination behind the IPv6 prefix will by default follow
the /64 rule as per [RFC6052]. Any trailing bits after the IPv4
address are set to 0x0.
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
5.5. The IPv6 Interface Identifier
The Interface identifier format of a MAP node is described below.
| 128-n-o-s bits |
| 16 bits| 32 bits | 16 bits|
+--------+----------------+--------+
| 0 | IPv4 address | PSID |
+--------+----------------+--------+
Figure 8
In the case of an IPv4 prefix, the IPv4 address field is right-padded
with zeros up to 32 bits. The 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. MAP-T Configuration
For a given MAP domain, the BR and CE MUST be configured with the
following MAP elements. The configured values for these elements are
identical for all CEs and BRs within a given MAP domain.
o The Basic Mapping Rule and optionally the Forwarding Mapping
Rules, including the Rule IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv4 prefix, and
Length of EA bits
o Hub and spoke mode or Mesh mode. (If all traffic should be sent
to the BR, or if direct CE to CE traffic should be supported).
o Use of Translation mode (MAP-T)
o The BR's IPv6 prefix used in the DMR
The MAP-T CE and BR configuration is the same as for MAP-E described
in Section 7 of [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] except for two differences:
o Translation mode is used instead of Encapsulation
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
o Use of the BR's IPv6 prefix instead of address
6.1. MAP CE
The MAP elements are set to values that are the same across all CEs
within a MAP domain. The values may be configured in a variety of
manners, including provisioning methods such as the Broadband Forum's
"TR-69" Residential Gateway management interface, an XML-based object
retrieved after IPv6 connectivity is established, DHCPv6, or manual
configuration by an administrator. This document does not prescribe
any of these methods, but recommends that a MAP CE SHOULD implement
DHCPv6 options as per [I-D.mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option]. Other
configuration and management methods may use the format described by
this option for consistency and convenience of implementation on CEs
that support multiple configuration methods.
The only remaining provisioning information the CE requires in order
to calculate the MAP IPv4 address and enable IPv4 connectivity is the
IPv6 prefix for the CE. The End-user IPv6 prefix is configured as
part of obtaining IPv6 Internet access, and requires no special
handling.
The MAP provisioning parameters, and hence the IPv4 service itself,
is tied to the End-user IPv6 prefix; thus, the MAP service is also
tied to this in terms of authorization, accounting, etc. The MAP
IPv4 address, prefix or shared IPv4 address and port set has the same
lifetime as its associated End-user IPv6 prefix.
A single MAP CE MAY be connected to more than one MAP domain, just as
any router may have more than one IPv4-enabled service provider
facing interface and more than one set of associated addresses
assigned by DHCPv6. Each domain a given CE operates within would
require its own set of MAP configuration elements and would generate
its own IPv4 address. The MAP DHCPv6 option is specified in
[I-D.mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option]
6.2. MAP BR
The MAP BR MUST be configured with the same MAP elements as the MAP
CEs operating within the same domain.
For increased reliability and load balancing, the BR IPv6 prefix MAY
be shared across a given MAP domain. As MAP is stateless, any BR may
be used at any time.
Since MAP uses provider address space, no specific routes need to be
advertised externally for MAP to operate, neither in IPv6 nor IPv4
BGP. However, the BR prefix needs to be advertised in the service
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
provider's IGP.
7. MAP-T Packet Forwarding
The end-end packet flow in MAP-T involves an IPv4 or IPv6 packet
being forwarded across one or both of a CE and a BR, in one of two
directions in for each such case.
7.1. IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE
A MAP-T CE receiving IPv4 packets SHOULD perform NAPT NAT44 function,
and create any necessary NAT44 bindings. The NAT'ed IPv4 packet's
source address and port MUST correspond to the source IPv4 address
and source transport port number computed to belong to the CE by
means of the MAP Basic Mapping Rule (BMR).
The resulting IPv4 packet is subject to a longest IPv4 address + port
match MAP rule selection, which then determines the parameters for
the subsequent NAT64 operation. By default, all traffic is matched
to the default mapping rule (DMR), and subject to the stateless NAT64
operation using the DMR parameters for the MAP algorithm and NAT64.
Packets matching destinations covered by any (optional) forward
mapping rules (FMRs) are subject to the stateless NAT64 operation
using the FMR parameters for the MAP algorithm and stateless NAT64.
A MAP-T CE MUST support a default mapping rule and SHOULD support one
or more forward mapping rules.
7.2. IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE
A MAP-T CE receiving an IPv6 packet performs its regular IPv6
operations (filtering, pre-routing, etc). Only packets that are
addressed to the CE's MAP-T addresses, and with source addresses
matching the IPv6 map-rule prefixes of a DMR or FMR, are processed by
the MAP-T CE. All other IPv6 traffic SHOULD be forwarded as per the
CE's IPv6 routing rules. The CE SHOULD check that MAP-T received
packets' destination transport-layer destination port number is in
the range allowed for by the CE's MAP BMR configuration. The CE
SHOULD drop any non conforming packet and respond with an ICMPv6
"Address Unreachable" (Type 1, Code 3). For packets whose source
address matches an FMR, the CE SHOULD perform a check of consistency
of the source against the allowed values from the source port-range.
If the packets' source port number is found to be outside the range
allowed, the CE MUST drop the packet and SHOULD respond with an
ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, Source address failed ingress/egress
policy" (Type 1, Code 5).
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
For each MAP-T processed packet, the CE's NAT64 function MUST derive
the IPv4 source and destination addresses. The IPv4 destination
address is derived by extracting relevant information from the IPv6
destination and the information stored in the BMR as per Section 5.2
of this document. The IPv4 source address is formed by classifying
the packet's source as matching a DMR or FMR rule prefix, and then
using that NAT64 rule-set, as per Section 5.4 or Section 5.3
respectively.
The resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE's NAPT NAT44
function, where the destination IPv4 address and port number MUST be
mapped to their original value, before being forwarded according to
the CE's regular IPv4 rules. When the NAPT function is not enabled,
the traffic from the stateless NAT64 function is directly forwarded
according to the CE's IPv4 rules.
7.3. IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR
A MAP-T BR receiving IPv6 packets MUST select a matching MAP rule
based on a longest address match of the packets' source address
against the BR's configured MAP Rules. In combination with the port-
set-id contained in the packet's source IPv6 address, the selected
MAP rule allows the BR to verify that the CE is using its allowed
address and port range. Thus, the BR MUST perform a validation of
the consistency of the source against the allowed values from the
identified port-range. If the packets' source port number is found
to be outside the range allowed, the BR MUST drop the packet and
respond with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, Source address
failed ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5).
When constructing the IPv4 packet, the BR MUST derive the source and
destination IPv4 addresses as per Section 5 of this document and
translate the IPv6 to IPv4 headers as per [RFC6145]. The resulting
IPv4 packets are then passed to regular IPv4 forwarding.
7.4. IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR
A MAP-T BR receiving IPv4 packets uses a longest match IPv4 +
transport layer port lookup to identify the target MAP-T domain and
rule. The MAP-T BR MUST then compute the IPv6 destination addresses
from the IPv4 destination address and port as per Section 5.2 of this
document. The MAP-T BR MUST also compute the IPv6 source addresses
from the IPv4 source address as per Section 5.4 (i.e. It needs to
form an IPv6 mapped IPv4 address using the BR's DMR prefix).
Throughout the generic IPv4 to IPv6 header procedures following
[RFC6145] apply. The resulting IPv6 packets are then passed to
regular IPv6 forwarding.
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Note that the operation of a BR when forwarding to MAP-T domains that
are defined without IPv4 address sharing is the same as stateless
NAT64 IPv4/IPv6 translation.
8. ICMP Handling
ICMP messages supported in the MAP-T domain needs to take 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 provide two transport protocol port fields
to represent both source and destination, the ICMP/ICMPv6 [RFC0792],
[RFC4443] Query message header has only one ID field which needs to
be used to identify a sending IPv4 host.
When receiving IPv4 ICMP messages, the MAP-T CE MUST rewrite the ID
field to a port value derived from the 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.
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.
9. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery
Due to the different sizes of the IPv4 and IPv6 header, handling the
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
maximum packet size is relevant for the operation of any system
connecting the two address families. There are three mechanisms to
handle this issue: Path MTU discovery (PMTUD), fragmentation, and
transport-layer negotiation such as the TCP Maximum Segment Size
(MSS) option [RFC0897]. MAP uses all three mechanisms to deal with
different cases.
9.1. Fragmentation in the MAP domain
Translating an IPv4 packet to carry it across the MAP domain will
increase its size by 20 bytes respectively. It is strongly
recommended that the MTU in the MAP domain is well managed and that
the IPv6 MTU on the CE WAN side interface is set so that no
fragmentation occurs within the boundary of the MAP domain.
Fragmentation in MAP-T domain is to be handled as described in
section 4 and 5 of [RFC6145].
9.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP domain borders
Forwarding of an IPv4 packet received from the outside of the MAP
domain requires the IPv4 destination address and the transport
protocol destination port. The transport protocol information is
only available in the first fragment received. As described in
section 5.3.3 of [RFC6346] a MAP node receiving an IPv4 fragmented
packet from outside has to reassemble the packet before sending the
packet onto the MAP link. If the first packet received contains the
transport protocol information, it is possible to optimize this
behavior by using a cache and forwarding the fragments unchanged. A
description of this algorithm is outside the scope of this document.
9.3. Sending IPv4 fragments to the outside
If two IPv4 host behind two different MAP CE's with the same IPv4
address sends fragments to an IPv4 destination host outside the
domain. Those hosts may use the same IPv4 fragmentation identifier,
resulting in incorrect reassembly of the fragments at the destination
host. Given that the IPv4 fragmentation identifier is a 16 bit
field, it could be used similarly to port ranges. A MAP CE SHOULD
rewrite the IPv4 fragmentation identifier to be within its allocated
port set.
10. Usage Considerations
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
10.1. EA-bit length set to 0
The MAP solution supports use and configuration of domains with a BMR
having an EA-bit length is set to 0. This results in independence
between the end-user IPv6 prefix assigned to the CE and the IPv4
address and/or port-range used by MAP.
The 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.
10.2. Mesh and Hub and spoke modes
The hub and spoke mode of communication, whereby all traffic sent by
a MAP-T CE is forwarded via a BR, and the mesh mode, whereby a CE is
directly able to forward traffic to another CE in the same MAP-T
domain, are governed by the activation of a Basic Mapping Rule as a
Forward Mapping Rule, and/or the configuration of additional FMRs.
By default, a MAP CE will interpret its BMR only to configure its
IPv4 parameters and IPv6 MAP address. The enable mesh-mode in a
domain, an FMR containing the equivalent information of the domain's
BMR needs to be created and used to configure the CEs.
10.3. Communication with IPv6 servers in the MAP-T domain
By default, MAP-T allows communication between both IPv4-only and any
IPv6 enabled devices, as well as with native IPv6-only servers
provided that the servers are configured with an IPv4-mapped IPv6
address using the DMR IPv6 prefix in the MAP-T domain. Such IPv6
servers (e.g. an HTTP server, or a web content cache device) are thus
able to serve both IPv6 users as well as IPv4-only users users alike
utilizing IPv6. Any such IPv6-only servers SHOULD have both A and
AAAA records in DNS [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.
10.4. Compatibility with other NAT64 solutions
A MAP-T CE, is by default compatible with [RFC6146] stateful NAT64
devices that are placed to use/advertise the BR prefix. This in
effect allows the use of MAP-T CEs in environments that need to
perform statistical multiplexing of IPv4 addresses, while utilizing
stateful NAT64 devices, and can take the role of a CLAT as defined in
[RFC6877].
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Furthermore, a MAP-T CE configured to operate without address sharing
(no PSID) is compatible with any stateless NAT64 devices positioned
as BRs.
11. IANA Considerations
This specification does not require any IANA actions.
12. Security Considerations
Spoofing attacks: With consistency checks between IPv4 and IPv6
sources that are performed on IPv4/IPv6 packets received by MAP
nodes, MAP does not introduce any new opportunity for spoofing
attacks that would not already exist in IPv6.
Denial-of-service attacks: In MAP domains where IPv4 addresses are
shared, the fact that IPv4 datagram reassembly may be necessary
introduces an opportunity for DOS attacks. This is inherent to
address sharing, and is common with other address sharing
approaches such as DS-Lite and NAT64/DNS64. The best protection
against such attacks is to accelerate IPv6 enablement in both
clients and servers so that, where MAP is supported, it is less
and less used.
Routing-loop attacks: This attack may exist in some automatic
tunneling scenarios are documented in [RFC6324]. They cannot
exist with MAP because each BRs checks that the IPv6 source
address of a received IPv6 packet is a CE address based on
Forwarding Mapping Rule.
Attacks facilitated by restricted port set: From hosts that are not
subject to ingress filtering of [RFC2827], some attacks are
possible by an attacker injecting spoofed packets during ongoing
transport connections ([RFC4953], [RFC5961], [RFC6056]. The
attacks depend on guessing which ports are currently used by
target hosts, and using an unrestricted port set is preferable,
i.e. Using native IPv6 connections that are not subject to MAP
port range restrictions. To minimize this type of attacks when
using a restricted port set, the MAP CE's NAT44 filtering behavior
SHOULD be "Address-Dependent Filtering". Furthermore, the MAP CEs
SHOULD use a DNS transport proxy function to handle DNS traffic,
and source such traffic from IPv6 interfaces not assigned to
MAP-T. Practicalities of these methods are discussed in Section
5.9 of [I-D.dec-stateless-4v6].
[RFC6269] outlines general issues with IPv4 address sharing.
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
13. Contributors
The following individuals authored major contribution to this
document:
Chongfeng Xie (China Telecom) Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing 100035 CN Phone: +86-10-58552116 Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn
Qiong Sun (China Telecom) Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing 100035 CN Phone: +86-10-58552936 Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
Rajiv Asati (Cisco Systems) 7025-6 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle
Park NC 27709 USA Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Gang Chen (China Mobile) 53A,Xibianmennei Ave. Beijing 100053
P.R.China Email: chengang@chinamobile.com
Wentao Shang (CERNET Center/Tsinghua University) Room 225, Main
Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 CN Email:
wentaoshang@gmail.com
Guoliang Han (CERNET Center/Tsinghua University) Room 225, Main
Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 CN Email:
bupthgl@gmail.com
Yu Zhai CERNET Center/Tsinghua University Room 225, Main Building,
Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 CN Email: jacky.zhai@gmail.com
14. Acknowledgements
This document is based on the ideas of many. In particular Remi
Despres, who has tirelessly worked on generalized mechanisms for
stateless address mapping.
The authors would like to thank Mohamed Boucadair, Guillaume Gottard,
Dan Wing, Jan Zorz, Necj Scoberne, Tina Tsou, , Gang Chen, Maoke
Chen, Xiaohong Deng, Jouni Korhonen, Tomasz Mrugalski, Jacni Qin,
Chunfa Sun, Qiong Sun, and Leaf Yeh for their review and comments.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
[RFC6346] Bush, R., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the
IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346, August 2011.
15.2. Informative References
[I-D.dec-stateless-4v6]
Dec, W., Asati, R., and H. Deng, "Stateless 4Via6 Address
Sharing", draft-dec-stateless-4v6-04 (work in progress),
October 2011.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map]
Troan, O., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, "Mapping of Address and Port
with Encapsulation (MAP)", draft-ietf-softwire-map-07
(work in progress), May 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.
[I-D.maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios]
Maglione, R., Dec, W., Kuarsingh, V., and E. Mallette,
"Use cases for MAP-T",
draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-02 (work in
progress), June 2013.
[I-D.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),
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
July 2012.
[I-D.xli-behave-divi]
Bao, C., Li, X., Zhai, Y., and W. Shang, "dIVI: Dual-
Stateless IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-xli-behave-divi-05
(work in progress), June 2013.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC0897] Postel, J., "Domain name system implementation schedule",
RFC 897, February 1984.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
RFC 2663, August 1999.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4953] Touch, J., "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks",
RFC 4953, July 2007.
[RFC5508] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
April 2009.
[RFC5961] Ramaiah, A., Stewart, R., and M. Dalal, "Improving TCP's
Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks", RFC 5961,
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
August 2010.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
January 2011.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
April 2011.
[RFC6219] Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The
China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI
Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6
Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, May 2011.
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.
[RFC6324] Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack Using
IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed
Mitigations", RFC 6324, August 2011.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, April 2013.
Appendix A. Examples of MAP-T translation
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Example 1 - Basic Mapping Rule:
Given the following MAP domain information and IPv6 end-user
prefix assigned to a MAP CE:
IPv6 prefix assigned to the end-user: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0000::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
PSID length: (16 - (32 - 24) = 8. (Sharing ratio of 256)
PSID offset: 6 (default)
A MAP node (CE or BR) can via the BMR, or equivalent FMR,
determine the IPv4 address and port-set as shown below:
EA bits offset: 40
IPv4 suffix bits (p) Length of IPv4 address (32) - IPv4 prefix
length (24) = 8
IPv4 address 192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
PSID start: 40 + p = 40 + 8 = 48
PSID length (q): o - p = (End-user prefix len -
rule IPv6 prefix len) - p = (56 - 40) - 8 = 8
PSID: 0x34
Available ports (63 ranges) : 1232-1235, 2256-2259, ...... ,
63696-63699, 64720-64723
The BMR information allows a MAP CE to determine (complete)
its IPv6 address within the indicated end-user IPv6 prefix.
IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Example 2 - BR:
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)
TCP source port: 80
IPv4 destination address: 192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
TCP destination port: 1232
Configured Forwarding Mapping Rule: {2001:db8::/40
(Rule IPv6 prefix), 192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
16 (Rule EA-bits length)}
MAP-T BR Prefix (DMR) 2001:db8:ffff::/64
The above information allows the BR to derive as follows
the mapped destination IPv6 address for the corresponding
MAP-T CE, and also the source IPv6 address for
the mapped IPv4 source address.
IPv4 suffix bits (p) 32 - 24 = 8 (18 (0x12))
PSID length: 8
PSID: 0x34 (1232)
The resulting IPv6 packet will have the following header fields:
IPv6 source address 2001:db8:ffff:0:0001:0203:0400::
IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
TCP source Port: 80
TCP destination Port: 1232
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Example 3- FMR:
An IPv4 host behind a MAP-T CE (configured as per the previous
examples) corresponding with an IPv4 host 1.2.3.4 will have its
packets converted into IPv6 using the DMR configured on the MAP-T
CE as follows:
Default Mapping Rule used by MAP-T CE: {2001:db8:ffff::/64
(Rule IPv6 prefix), 0.0.0.0/0 (Rule IPv4 prefix), null (BR IPv4
address)}
IPv4 source address (post NAT44 if present) 192.0.2.18
IPv4 destination address: 1.2.3.4
IPv4 source port (post NAT44 if present): 1232
IPv4 destination port: 80
IPv6 source address of MAP-T CE:
2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:ffff:0:0001:0203:0400::
Example 4 - Rule with no embedded address bits and no address sharing
End-user IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
192.0.2.1/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 0 (Rule EA-bits length)}
PSID length: 0 (Sharing ratio is 1)
PSID offset: n/a
A MAP node can via the BMR or equivalent FMR, determine
the IPv4 address and port-set as shown below:
EA bits offset: 0
IPv4 suffix bits (p) Length of IPv4 address - IPv4 prefix
length = 32 - 32 = 0
IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 (0xc0000201)
PSID start: 0
PSID length: 0
PSID: null
The BMR information allows a MAP CE also to determine (complete)
its full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP
interface identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address).
IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0201:0000
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Example 5 - Rule with no embedded address bits and address sharing
(sharing ratio 256)
End-user IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule: {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
192.0.2.1/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 0 (Rule EA-bits length)}
PSID length: (16 - (32 - 24)) = 8. (Provisioned with DHCPv6.
Sharing ratio of 256.).
PSID offset: 6 (default)
PSID: 0x20 (Provisioned with DHCPv6)
A MAP node can via the BMR determine the IPv4 address and port-set
as shown below:
EA bits offset: 0
IPv4 suffix bits (p): Length of IPv4 address - IPv4 prefix
length = 32 -32 = 0
IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 (0xc0000201)
PSID start: 0
PSID length: 8
PSID: 0x20
Available ports (63 ranges) : 1536-1551, 2560-2575, ...... ,
64000-64015, 65024-65039
The BMR information allows a MAP CE also to determine (complete)
its full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP
interface identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address and PSID).
IPv6 address of MAP CE: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
Note that the IPv4 address and PSID is not derived from the IPv6
prefix assigned to the CE, but provisioned separately using for
example MAP options in DHCPv6.
Appendix B. Port mapping algorithm
The driving principles and the mathematical expression of the mapping
algorithm used by MAP can be found in Appendix B of
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map]
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Authors' Addresses
Xing Li
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
CN
Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
Congxiao Bao
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
CN
Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
Wojciech Dec (editor)
Cisco Systems
Haarlerbergpark Haarlerbergweg 13-19
Amsterdam, NOORD-HOLLAND 1101 CH
Netherlands
Phone:
Email: wdec@cisco.com
Ole Troan
Cisco Systems
Oslo
Norway
Email: ot@cisco.com
Satoru Matsushima
SoftBank Telecom
1-9-1 Higashi-Shinbashi, Munato-ku
Tokyo
Japan
Email: satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft MAP-T July 2013
Tetsuya Murakami
IP Infusion
1188 East Arques Avenue
Sunnyvale
USA
Email: tetsuya@ipinfusion.com
Li, et al. Expires January 3, 2014 [Page 32]