Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 report
draft-janog-softwire-report-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Shishio Tsuchiya , Shuichi Ohkubo , Yuya Kawakami | ||
| Last updated | 2012-07-09 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-janog-softwire-report-00
Internet Engineering Task Force S. Tsuchiya, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational S. Ohkubo
Expires: January 10, 2013 Sakura Internet
Y. Kawakami
INTERNET MULTIFEED CO.
July 9, 2012
Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 report
draft-janog-softwire-report-00
Abstract
Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel such as MAP(Mapping of Address and
Port)/4rd(IPv4 Residual Deployment) designs to support IPv4 over IPv6
island and resolve IPv4 shortage problem by Address and Port Mapping
technique. This document describes supported vendor's
implementation, ipv4 functionality over IPv6 and interoperability
report.
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 10, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
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.
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Implementation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. IpInfusion [IPI] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. FURUKAWA NETWORK SOLUTION [FNSC] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Internet Initiative Japan [SEIL] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IPv4 functionality over IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. T-1:ICMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. T-2:IPSec VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. T-3:SSL VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. T-4:FTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. T-5:PPTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. T-6:L2TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.7. T-7:Instant Messaging and VoIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7.1. Facebook on the web (http) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7.2. Facebook via a client (xmpp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7.3. Jabber.org chat service (xmpp) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7.4. Gmail chat on the web (http) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7.5. Gmail chat via a client (xmpp) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7.6. Google Talk client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7.7. AIM (AOL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7.8. ICQ (AOL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7.9. Skype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7.10. MSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7.11. Webex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7.12. Sametime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7.13. facetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8. T-8:NAT veification tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.9. Test Result Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Next step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.1. test network toplogy and parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2.1. IPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2.2. FNSC:BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.2.3. FNSC:CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.2.4. SEIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
1. Introduction
Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel such as MAP(Mapping of Address and
Port)/4rd(IPv4 Residual Deployment) designs to support IPv4 over IPv6
island and resolve IPv4 shortage problem by Address and Port Mapping
technique. JApan Network Operators Group[JANOG] has presented
4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] test environment to the JANOG30
conference network. This document describes
4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] supported vendor's implementation,
ipv4 functionality over IPv6 and interoperability report.
2. Implementation Report
Three vendors paticipanted to the JANOG30
4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] test network. In this
session,describes information of "implementation reference" and
"provisiong method".
2.1. IpInfusion [IPI]
-implementation reference
[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd-00]
-provisioning method
CLI configuration
2.2. FURUKAWA NETWORK SOLUTION [FNSC]
-implementation reference
[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd-00]
-provisioning method
CLI configuration
2.3. Internet Initiative Japan [SEIL]
-implementation reference
[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd-00]
-provisioning method
CLI configuration
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
3. IPv4 functionality over IPv6
4rd [draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] uses A+P technologies with NAT44.
Basic NAT requirement is defined as [RFC4787], [RFC5508] and
[RFC5382]. But there is difference of implementation among vendors.
ALG support also depends on vendors implementations.This test result
is feedback from operators community [JANOG] to vendors and IETF
community.
3.1. T-1:ICMP
Section 9 of [draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] describes about ICMP
handling in 4rd domain.
IPv4 MTU configured 1460 in tunnel interface, because the conference
network was well-managed. It describes on Section 6 of
[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd]
T-1-1: echo/echo reply
Test result of ICMP echo/echo reply between
4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] network and global internet.
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | OK | OK | OK |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
T-1-2: does not response
Test result of ICMP host unreachable message from global internet to
4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd].
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | OK | OK | OK |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
T-1-3: ttl expire
Test result of ICMP ttl expire message from global internet to
4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd].
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | OK | OK | OK |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
T-1-4: Packet too Big
Could not confirm Packet too big message from
4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] CE, because test terminal MTU size
was 1300 even though 4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] CE's IPv4 MTU
was configured as 1460.
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | N/A | N/A | N/A |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
3.2. T-2:IPSec VPN
IPSec VPN [RFC2401] uses ESP packets, therefore the client should
support NAT traversal [RFC3948] under 4rd enviroment.
T-2-1:IPSec
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | N.G | N.G | N.G |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
This result is expected behavior.
T-2-2:IPSec VPN(UDP:NAT Traversal)
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
3.3. T-3:SSL VPN
It should be no problem, because SSL VPN[RFC4347] uses TCP sockets.
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
3.4. T-4:FTP
FTP[RFC0959] PORT(Active) and PASV(Passive) mode had sometimes
problem in NAT44. [RFC2428] is enhancement FTP for IPv6/NAT. But
4rd [draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] devices need to support FTP ALG, if
the implementation would not be deployed in widely.
T-4-1:Passive(PASV) mode
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
T-4-2:Active(PORT) mode
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | N.G | O.K | O.K |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
[IPI] does not support FTP Active mode in this configuration.
3.5. T-5:PPTP
PPTP[RFC2637] uses GRE and TCP port 1723. Unless configuring to pass
GRE and TCP port 1723, can not use PPTP on 4rd
[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd].
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | N.G | N.G | N.G |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
3.6. T-6:L2TP
L2TP/IPsec[RFC3193] should support on
4rd[draft-murakami-softwire-4rd] using with NAT Traversal[RFC3948].
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
| Result | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+--------+-------+--------+--------+
3.7. T-7:Instant Messaging and VoIP
Verified functionality of Instant Messaging and VoIP tool that
described on section 5.3 of [RFC6586] and facetime within same 4rd
CE, different 4rd CEs and between 4rd BR and CE.
3.7.1. Facebook on the web (http)
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
Tested both chat and video.
3.7.2. Facebook via a client (xmpp)
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
3.7.3. Jabber.org chat service (xmpp)
Not tested
3.7.4. Gmail chat on the web (http)
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
Tested chat,voice and video.
3.7.5. Gmail chat via a client (xmpp)
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
3.7.6. Google Talk client
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
Tested chat and voice.
3.7.7. AIM (AOL)
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
Tested chat and video.
3.7.8. ICQ (AOL)
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
Tested chat,voice and video
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
3.7.9. Skype
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
Tested chat,voice and video.
3.7.10. MSN
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
Tested chat,voice and video.
3.7.11. Webex
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
Tested chat,voice and video in the meeting.
3.7.12. Sametime
Not tested
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
3.7.13. facetime
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| Combination | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] | Internet |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
| [IPI] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [FNSC] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
| [SEIL] | O.K | O.K | O.K | O.K |
+-------------+-------+--------+--------+----------+
3.8. T-8:NAT veification tool
Acording to Section-8 of [draft-murakami-softwire-4rd], 4rd CE should
support [RFC4787], [RFC5508] and [RFC5382] . This section describes
the result of 4rd CEs which were verified by test tool.
T-8-1:STUN
STUN server and UDP hole punching are used for online game.
[RFC4787] is Best Current Practise of NAT behavior requirent for UDP.
[STUN tools] and [public stun server] are useful to confirm
functionality of online game.
+------------------+------------+----------------+----------------+
| Test item/vendor | [IPI] | [FNSC] | [SEIL] |
+------------------+------------+----------------+----------------+
| REQ-1: | Dependent | Independent | Independent |
| REQ-8: | Not tested | Port Dependent | Port Dependent |
| REQ-9: | no hairpin | will hairpin | no hairpin |
+------------------+------------+----------------+----------------+
REQ-1: Endpoint-Independent Mapping
REQ-8: Filtering Behavior
REQ-9: Hairpinning
T-6-2:NAT-Analyzer
[NAT-Analyzer] is JAVA applet in the browser to verify NAT
functionality.
[IPI] Result [1]
[FNSC] Result [2]
[SEIL] Result [3]
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
3.9. Test Result Summary
Most of modern applications and VPN protocols could use in multi
vendor 4rd [draft-murakami-softwire-4rd]. But there is difference of
[RFC4787] test result. Some vendors might be fault when using online
games.
4. Interoperability
4rd stateless technology that means does not need maintenance of
state machine. So there are no problem of interoperability.
But configured ::1 as index of CE IPv6 address even though use shared
IPv4 address. A reason is for avoiding the trouble by the difference
in the maturity of the anycast support between vendors.
5. Next step
We have test plan about MAP[draft-ietf-softwire-map]. The draft will
updade to result of MAP[draft-ietf-softwire-map] or/and Unified
4rd[draft-ietf-softwire-4rd].
6. Contributors
Test netork Contributors
Chisato Kashiwagi Chisato.Kashiwagi@ipinfusion.com
Hideaki Hayashi hide@fnsc.co.jp
Hiromitsu Yunoki yunoki@fnsc.co.jp
Kaihei Koyama koyama@kct.co.jp
Kouki Ooyatsu kouki-o@iij.ad.jp
Kunihiro Ishiguro kunihiro.ishiguro@access-company.com
Shuuichi Saito shuu@fnsc.co.jp
Takamasa Ogawa ogawa@kct.co.jp
Takuya Iimura tiimura@cisco.com
Tetsuya Murakami Tetsuya.Murakami@ipinfusion.com
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
Tomoki Murai murai@fnsc.co.jp
Tomoyuki Sahara tsahara@iij.ad.jp
Tomoyuki Fukunaga fukunaga@fnsc.co.jp
Naoya Takeda ntakeda@cisco.com
Ryo Sato sr.10005@konami.com
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thanks JANOG30 paticipants.The authors would
like to thank you Satoru Matsushima,Seiichi Kawamura for their
thorough review and comments.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. Security Considerations
There is no additional security requirement.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-softwire-4rd]
Despres, R., Penno, R., Lee, Y., Chen, G., and S. Jiang,
"IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - a unified Stateless
Solution (4rd)", draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-00 (work in
progress), May 2012.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map]
Troan, O., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Zhai, Y., Matsushima,
S., and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port (MAP)",
draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 (work in progress), June 2012.
[I-D.murakami-softwire-4rd]
Murakami, T. and O. Troan, "IPv4 Residual Deployment on
IPv6 infrastructure - protocol specification",
draft-murakami-softwire-4rd-00 (work in progress),
July 2011.
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
[RFC2637] Hamzeh, K., Pall, G., Verthein, W., Taarud, J., Little,
W., and G. Zorn, "Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol",
RFC 2637, July 1999.
[RFC3193] Patel, B., Aboba, B., Dixon, W., Zorn, G., and S. Booth,
"Securing L2TP using IPsec", RFC 3193, November 2001.
[RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets",
RFC 3948, January 2005.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[RFC5508] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
April 2009.
[RFC6586] Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only
Network", RFC 6586, April 2012.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation]
Boucadair, M., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O.,
Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Stateless IPv4
over IPv6 Migration Solutions",
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-00 (work in
progress), September 2011.
[JANOG] ""JApan Network Operators Group"",
<http://www.janog.gr.jp/en>.
[NAT-Analyzer]
""Network Measurement Activites at TUM"",
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
<http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/>.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[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.
[RFC5387] Touch, J., Black, D., and Y. Wang, "Problem and
Applicability Statement for Better-Than-Nothing Security
(BTNS)", RFC 5387, November 2008.
[RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, January 2010.
[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010.
[RFC6104] Chown, T. and S. Venaas, "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement
Problem Statement", RFC 6104, February 2011.
[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.
[STUN tools]
""STUN Client and Server"",
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/stun/>.
[public stun server]
""stunserver.org"", <http://stunserver.org>.
URIs
[1] <http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/
individualResult.php?hash=c8797328af6487a45bfc6d518e19b605>
[2] <http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
individualResult.php?hash=332166a0250ffa522ef776d837a62221>
[3] <http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/
individualResult.php?hash=d85f28343643bd82f9e1413ca7043564>
Appendix A. Additional Stuff
A.1. test network toplogy and parameters
.--.
_(. `)
_( IPv4 `)_
( Internet `)
( ` . ) )
`--(_______)---'
|
+----------+
| 4rd BR |
+----------+ 4rd BR IPv6 address
| 2001:e90:30:1::2
.--.
_(. `)
_( IPv6 `)_
( Backbone `) domain 4rd prefix:203.76.72.0/24
( ` . ) ) domain IPv6 prefix:2001:e90::/32
`--(_______)---' CE IPv6 prefix:
| [FNSC]2001:e90:31::/48
| [SEIL]2001:e90:32::/48
+---------------+ [IPI] 2001:e90:33::/48
| IPv6 Switch | PSID: 8bit
+---------------+ Tunnel Interface IPv4 MTU: 1460
| | |
[IPI] [FNSC] [SEIL]
Figure 1
A.2. Configuration
A.2.1. IPI
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
# /etc/rc.local
ip -f inet6 tunnel add map1
ip -f inet6 tunnel change map1 map_mode 4rd
wan_if_name lo
map_border_router 2001:e90:30:1::2
rule_ipv6_suffix 1
rule_ipv4_prefix 203.76.72.0/24
allow_private 1
rule_ipv6_prefix 2001:e90::/32
rule_eabits_length 16
rule_ipv6_iid ::1 map_autosetgw 1
map_autosetaddr 1
mss auto
# /etc/sysctl.conf
# 4RD Configuration
net.ipv4.conf.all.forwarding=1
net.ipv6.conf.all.nd_proxy_loopback=1
net.xrd.delegated_prefix=2001:e90:33::/48
A.2.2. FNSC:BR
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 211.125.127.97
ip route 203.76.72.0 255.255.255.0 tunnel 1
!
ipv6 route ::/0 2001:e90:30:1::1
!
interface GigaEthernet 1/9
channel-group 19
exit
!
!
interface port-channel 19
ip address 211.125.127.98 255.255.255.252
ipv6 address 2001:e90:30:1::2/64
exit
!
interface tunnel 1
tunnel mode ipinip ipv4 ipv6-tunnel-profile 1
exit
!
ipv4 ipv6-tunnel-profile 1
profile-mode 4rd
ipv4-global-prefix 203.76.72.0/24
ipv6-global-prefix 2001:e90::/32
user-len 16
source-address 2001:e90:30:1::2
ipv6-local-site-id 1
ipv6-host-id ::1
exit
!
end
A.2.3. FNSC:CE
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 tunnel 1
!
access-list 1 permit any
access-list 10 permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255
!
ipv6 route ::/0 2001:e90:30:1000::1
!
ip nat ap_pool POOL1
ipv6-tunnel-profile 1
exit
ip ipv6-tunnel-profile 1
ipv6-global-prefix 2001:e90:31:1::1
ipv6-prefix-len 32
ipv4-global-prefix 203.76.72.0 255.255.255.0
user-len 16
ipv6-host-id ::1
ipv6-local-site-id ::1
br-address 2001:e90:30:1::2
exit
!
interface ewan 1
ip mtu 1500
ip address 211.125.127.70 255.255.255.224
ip nat inside source list 1 interface
ipv6 address 2001:e90:30:1000::6/64
ipv6 mtu 1500
exit
interface lan 1
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip mtu 1500
ipv6 address address-pool pool1 prefix-length 64 interface-id ::1 local-site-id ::1 local-site-id-len 16
ipv6 mtu 1500
exit
interface tunnel 1
tunnel mode ipip ipv6-tunnel-profile 1
tunnel source 2001:e90:31:1::1
ip mtu 1460
ip nat inside source list 10 ap_pool POOL1
exit
!
A.2.4. SEIL
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv4 over IPv6 report July 2012
interface lan0 add 192.168.2.1/24
interface lan0 add 2001:e90:32:1::1/64
interface lan1 add 2001:e90:30:1000::7/64
interface frd0 mtu 1460
interface frd0 tcp-mss 1420
route add default frd0
route6 add default 2001:e90:30:1000::1
nat napt add private 192.168.2.0-192.168.2.255 interface frd0
nat proxy sip add port 5060 protocol tcpudp
frd mode ce
frd ce-address 2001:e90:32:1::1
frd br-address 2001:e90:30:1::2
frd rule add JANOG external-ipv4-prefix 203.76.72.0/24 internal-ipv6-prefix 2001:e90::/32 index-length 16 host-id ::1
Authors' Addresses
Shishio Tsuchiya (editor)
Cisco Systems
Midtown Tower, 9-7-1,Akasaka
Minato-Ku, Tokyo 107-6227
Japan
Phone: +81 3 6434 6543
Email: shtsuchi@cisco.com
Shuichi Ohkubo
Sakura Internet
33F Sumitomo fudosan Nishi shinjuku Bldg.,7-20-1 Nishi shinjuku
Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 160-0023
Japan
Phone: +81 3 5332 7070
Email: ohkubo@sakura.ad.jp
Yuya Kawakami
INTERNET MULTIFEED CO.
OTEMACHI 1st.SQUARE EAST TOWER,3F 1-5-1,Otemachi,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0004
Japan
Phone: +81 3 3282 1040
Email: kawakami@mfeed.ad.jp
Tsuchiya, et al. Expires January 10, 2013 [Page 20]