Intended status: Standards Track Expires: April 26, 2012 Y. Ma Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications October 24, 2011

Similar documents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. February 2012

DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: August 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7040 Category: Informational. O. Vautrin Juniper Networks Y. Lee Comcast November 2013

Network Working Group. Intended status: Informational. H. Deng. China Mobile. July 4, 2014

Expires: October 9, 2005 April 7, 2005

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. Q. Sun China Telecom M. Boucadair France Telecom October 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. July 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force. Intended status: Standards Track. June 7, 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISC S. Krishnan Ericsson I. Farrer Deutsche Telekom AG August 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6440 Category: Standards Track. Huawei December 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd July Rebind Capability in DHCPv6 Reconfigure Messages

Internet Engineering Task Force. Intended status: Standards Track. February 23, 2015

Intended status: Informational. Intel Corporation P. Seite. France Telecom - Orange. February 14, 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2018

M. Wang, Ed. Intended status: Informational Expires: January 4, China Mobile July 3, 2017

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track August Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option

Network Configuration Example

Expires: April 19, 2019 October 16, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8191 Category: Standards Track. X. Lee CNNIC. August 2017

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track February 2009

Intended status: Standards Track. Cisco Systems October 22, 2018

Intended status: Standards Track. Cisco Systems, Inc. October 17, 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. Cisco Systems January A YANG Data Model for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)

Hypertext Transfer Protocol: Access Control List draft-zhao-http-acl-00

P. van der Stok. Intended status: Informational Expires: October 10, April 8, 2014

Network Working Group. Intended status: Experimental Expires: March 16, 2010 Tsinghua University C. Metz Cisco Systems, Inc. September 12, 2009

Expires: April 11, 2019 October 8, 2018

Expires: April 19, 2019 October 16, 2018

IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd) in broadband networks. Allen Huotari Technical Leader June 14, 2010 NANOG49 San Francisco, CA

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6939 Category: Standards Track. May 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Cisco May 2012

Intended status: Informational Expires: January 5, 2015 July 4, 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force

Intended status: Informational Expires: March 7, 2019 Huawei Technologies N. Leymann Deutsche Telekom G. Swallow Independent September 3, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Best Current Practice. Cisco Systems July IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. J. Halpern Ericsson E. Levy-Abegnoli, Ed. Cisco February 2017

Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge. Intended status: Standards Track. May 10, 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force

Intended Status: Experimental Expires: October 04, 2018 P. Wang L. Tian T. Duan NDSC P.R. China April 04, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. G. Zorn, Ed. Network Zen D. Miles Google B. Lourdelet Juniper Networks April 2013

Service Function Chaining. Intended status: Informational Expires: January 1, 2015 Peng He Ciena July 1, 2014

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: December 11, 2018 Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications June 9, 2018

Updates: 4448 (if approved) Intended status: Standards Track Expires: January 3, 2019 July 02, 2018

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: December 5, 2015 ZTE Corporation M. Boucadair France Telecom June 3, 2015

MIP4 Working Group. Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv4 draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message-16

Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track. Cisco Systems May 16, 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Microsoft May Packet-Loss Resiliency for Router Solicitations

Distributed Mobility Management [dmm] Vasona Networks October 27, 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 4242 Category: Standards Track University of Southampton B. Volz Cisco Systems, Inc.

Open Shortest Path First IGP. Intended status: Standards Track

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) June Network Time Protocol (NTP) Server Option for DHCPv6

Intended status: Standards Track

Intended status: Standards Track. K. Patel Cisco J. Haas Juniper Networks June 30, 2014

Request for Comments: 5453 Category: Standards Track February 2009

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: December 5, 2015 ZTE Corporation M. Boucadair France Telecom June 3, 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. May Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) Bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario

Network Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track Expires: September 2, 2018 March 1, 2018

Updates: RFC7568 (if approved) Intended status: Standards Track Expires: August 5, 2017 Tsinghua University February 1, 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6034 Category: Standards Track October 2010 ISSN:

Softwire Mesh Management Information Base (MIB)

Network Working Group. Intended status: Informational. July 16, 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6769 Category: Informational. A. Lo Arista L. Zhang UCLA X. Xu Huawei October 2012

Intended status: Standards Track. May 21, Assigned BGP extended communities draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities-03

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Obsoletes: 4773, 5156, 5735, JHU April 2013

Intended Status: Standards Track Expires: September 22, 2016 Fabio Chiussi. March 21, 2016

Network Working Group. Intended status: Informational Expires: October 24, 2013 April 22, 2013

Network Working Group. Category: Standards Track June Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Subscriber-ID Option

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: July 1, 2018 P. Sarkar J. Tantsura Individual December 28, 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track May 2011 ISSN:

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: August 17, 2014 C. Griffiths Dyn R. Weber Nominum February 13, 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6441 BCP: 171 November 2011 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7078 Category: Standards Track. University of Southampton January 2014

Definitions of Managed Objects for Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)

Intended status: Informational Expires: March 17, 2014 University of Napoli September 13, 2013

Request for Comments: 5569 Category: Informational January 2010 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) January 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: November 2010

Category: Standards Track December 2003

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6610 Category: Standards Track. K. Chowdhury Radio Mobile Access, Inc. J. Choi.

Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems D. Tappan Consultant October 2009

July 2, Diet-IPsec: Requirements for new IPsec/ESP protocols according to IoT use cases draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp-requirements-00.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7152 Category: Informational

Network Working Group Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track. O. Troan Cisco Systems, Inc. April 1, 2017

Network Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track Expires: January 3, 2019 S. Wi Sungkyunkwan University J. Park ETRI July 2, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 2474 August 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Transport Area Working Group. Intended status: Standards Track. September 3, 2018

Intended status: Standards Track Expires: July 22, 2016 January 19, 2016

Mobile Ad-hoc Networks. Intended status: Informational July 16, 2012 Expires: January 17, 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. S. Krishnan Ericsson October 2015

Category: Standards Track October Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4 (DHCPv4)

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track April 2013 ISSN: Formally Deprecating Some ICMPv4 Message Types

Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC) Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track Expires: August 31, 2017 February 27, 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Q. Wu, Ed. R. Huang Huawei November 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7024 Category: Standards Track

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Cisco C. Perkins Futurewei Inc. October Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6

DHC Working Group Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track. L. Yiu Comcast October 18, 2015

Problem space matrix based on the guideline* Crossing IPv4 Island

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Retana Cisco Systems July 2013

Transcription:

softwire Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track Expires: April 26, 2012 Z. Li China Mobile Q. Zhao X. Huang Y. Ma Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications October 24, 2011 DS-Lite Intra-Domain Automatic Tunnel draft-li-softwire-dslite-intra-domain-00 Abstract This document specifies an automatic tunneling mechanism for providing IPv4 connectivity service to IPv6 end users in the same DS- Lite domain. Key aspects include stateless operation and algorithmic mapping between IPv4 addresses and IPv6 tunnel endpoints. 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 April 26, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust s Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must Li, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 1]

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. Requirements Language..................... 3 3. Terminology.......................... 3 4. Configuration......................... 4 4.1. CPE Configuration..................... 4 4.2. CGN Configuration..................... 4 5. Algorithmic Mapping Rules................... 4 5.1. From a CPE tunnel address to a Domain IPv6 prefix..... 5 5.2. From a CPE tunnel address to a Domain IPv4 prefix..... 5 5.3. From a CPE tunnel address to a CPE IPv4 prefix...... 5 5.4. From an IPv4 address to a CPE tunnel address....... 5 6. CPE and CGN behaviors..................... 6 6.1. CPE reception of an IPv4 packet.............. 6 6.2. CPE reception of an IPv6 packet.............. 6 6.3. CGN reception of an IPv4 packet.............. 7 6.4. CGN reception of an IPv6 packet.............. 7 7. Security Considerations.................... 7 8. IANA Considerations...................... 7 9. References.......................... 7 9.1. Normative References................... 7 9.2. Informative References.................. 7 Authors Addresses........................ 7 Li, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 2]

1. Introduction DS-Lite [RFC6333] technology is used to deploy IPv6 following IPv4 exhaustion in service provider networks. It enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4 addresses among customers by combining IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel and NAT44 translation. From the view of network topology, DS-Lite is a good solution to "Hubs and Spokes" problem [RFC4925] since all the IPv4 traffic from B4 will be concentrated at AFTR even if all the IPv4 traffic are between two adjacent B4 devices. But, there are huge IPv4 traffic demands among end users. Many applications such as Instant Messenger are providing directly end-to-end highspeed transport when they find corresponding users are adjacent, instead of relaying the traffic by remote server. Current DS-Lite technology concentrates all end users IPv4 traffic in IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels at AFTR and AFTR relays IPv4 traffic among different tunnels. It delays packet delivery among adjacent users, aggravates additional workload on AFTR or CGN and involves redundant forwarding path. This document introduces the concept of domain to DS-Lite technology. A DS-Lite domain consists of many home gateways or CPEs with B4 function and one CGN with AFTR function. IPv4 packets encapsulated by DS-Lite follow the IPv6 routing topology within the SP network between CPEs or between CPE and CGN. From the view of network topology, CPE-to-CPE IPv4 traffic in an IPv6 domain is a "Mesh" problem [RFC4925]. This document introduces intra-domain automatic tunnel technology to solve it. 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Terminology DS-Lite domain (Domain): A set of DS-Lite CPEs and CGN connected to the same virtual DS-Lite link. An SP may deploy DS-Lite within a single DS-Lite domain or across multiple DS-Lite domains. DS-Lite CPE (CPE): The home gateway with B4 function. DS-Lite CGN (CGN): The tunnel concentrate points with AFTR funtion. Li, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 3]

CPE IPv4 prefix: The IPv4 prefix of the CPE. It is derived from the CPE tunnel address. CPE IPv4 prefix is the subset of Domain IPv4 prefix and can be assigned to LAN side. CPE tunnel address: The IPv6 address on the B4 interface of CPE. It is combined by Domain IPv6 prefix and CPE IPv4 prefix. CGN tunnel address: The IPv6 address on the AFTR interface of CGN. It may be any global IPv6 address. Domain IPv4 prefix: A part of or all of IPv4 private address space shared among different service providers. It is non-overlapping in a DS-Lite Domain. Domain IPv6 prefix: A part of global IPv6 address space. It differs among different DS-Lite Domains and keeps the same within a DS-Lite Domain. 4. Configuration For a given DS-Lite domain, the CPE and CGN MUST be configured with a set of mapping rules and tunnel addresses. The configuration MUST be consistent for all CPEs and CGN within a given DS-Lite domain. A mapping rules consists of the following elements: a CPE tunnel address, a Domain IPv6 prefix length, a Domain IPv4 prefix length, a CPE IPv4 prefix length. See section 5 for detailed description of mapping rules. 4.1. CPE Configuration The CPE can obtain necessary parameters via DHCPv6 [RFC3315] protocols with new options. Generally, CPE needs an independent IPv6 address via DHCPv6 to access native IPv6 Internet. Besides, CPE needs mapping rules and CGN tunnel address from DHCPv6 options to access IPv4 Internet. Also, these parameters can be manually configured on CPE. 4.2. CGN Configuration The CGN should be configured with CGN tunnel address at least. 5. Algorithmic Mapping Rules Li, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 4]

5.1. From a CPE tunnel address to a Domain IPv6 prefix When a mapping rule is received, CPE will extract necessary parameters from it. Domain IPv6 prefix is calculated by CPE tunnel address and Domain IPv6 prefix length. <---------------- CPE tunnel address (128) ----------------> +------------------------------+--------------------+--------+-----+ Domain IPv6 Prefix Domain IPv4 Prefix CPE ID 0 +------------------------------+--------------------+--------+-----+ <- Domain IPv6 Prefix length -> Figure 1: From a CPE tunnel address to a Domain IPv6 prefix 5.2. From a CPE tunnel address to a Domain IPv4 prefix When a mapping rule is received, CPE will extract necessary parameters from it. Domain IPv4 prefix is calculated by CPE tunnel address and Domain IPv4 prefix length. <---------------- CPE tunnel address (128) ----------------> +--------------------+------------------------------+--------+-----+ Domain IPv6 Prefix Domain IPv4 Prefix CPE ID 0 +--------------------+------------------------------+--------+-----+ <- Domain IPv4 Prefix length -> Figure 2: From a CPE tunnel address to a Domain IPv6 prefix 5.3. From a CPE tunnel address to a CPE IPv4 prefix When a mapping rule is received, CPE will extract necessary parameters from it. CPE IPv4 prefix is calculated by CPE tunnel address and CPE IPv4 prefix length. <---------------- CPE tunnel address (128) ----------------> +------------------------+------------------------+----------+-----+ Domain IPv6 Prefix Domain IPv4 Prefix CPE ID 0 +------------------------+------------------------+----------+-----+ <- CPE IPv4 Prefix length -> Figure 3: From a CPE tunnel address to a Domain IPv6 prefix 5.4. From an IPv4 address to a CPE tunnel address When a packet destined for hosts intra-domain is received, the destination IPv4 address will be mapped to the CPE tunnel address of destination host. The Domain IPv6 Prefix has been calculated out from mapping rule during initialization. The CPE IPv4 Prefix length Li, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 5]

keeps the same in a DS-Lite domain. The CPE IPv4 Prefix can be calculated by destination IPv4 address and CPE IPv4 Prefix length. <- CPE IPv4 Prefix length -> +------------------------+-----------------------------------+-----+ Domain IPv6 Prefix CPE IPv4 Prefix 0 +------------------------+-----------------------------------+-----+ <---------------- CPE tunnel address (128) ----------------> Figure 4: From a CPE tunnel address to a Domain IPv6 prefix 6. CPE and CGN behaviors 6.1. CPE reception of an IPv4 packet Step 1: CPE calculates destination CPE IPv4 prefix by CPE IPv4 Prefix length and the IPv4 destination address in the received IPv4 packet. Then CPE compares it with the Domain IPv4 prefix. If the destination CPE IPv4 prefix is a part of Domain IPv4 prefix, the IPv4 packet will be encapsulated in intra-domain automatic IPv4- in-ipv6 tunnel. The source IPv6 address is source CPE tunnel address and the destination IPv6 address is calculated as descibed in section 5.4. An automatic tunnel will be established between source CPE and destination CPE bypassing CGN. If the destination CPE IPv4 prefix is out of Domain IPv4 prefix, CPE proceeds to step2. Step 2: The IPv4 packet will be encapsulated in primitive DS-Lite IPv4-in- IPv6 tunnel. The source IPv6 address is source CPE tunnel address and the destination IPv6 address is the CGN tunnel address. 6.2. CPE reception of an IPv6 packet Step 1: CPE decapsulates the IPv6 packet and forwards the IPv4 packets to destination host. Li, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 6]

6.3. CGN reception of an IPv4 packet The same with existing AFTR mechanisms. 6.4. CGN reception of an IPv6 packet The same with existing AFTR mechanisms. 7. Security Considerations TBD. 8. IANA Considerations This document makes no request of IANA. Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 9.2. Informative References [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. [RFC4925] Li, X., Dawkins, S., Ward, D., and A. Durand, "Softwire Problem Statement", RFC 4925, July 2007. [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011. Li, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 7]

Authors Addresses Zhenqiang Li China Mobile Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xicheng District Beijing 100053 P.R. China Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Qin Zhao Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications Information Network Center, No. 10 Xitucheng Road, Haidian District Beijing 100876 P.R. China Email: zhaoqin@bupt.edu.cn Xiaohong Huang Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications Information Network Center, No. 10 Xitucheng Road, Haidian District Beijing 100876 P.R. China Email: huangxh@bupt.edu.cn Yan Ma Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications Information Network Center, No. 10 Xitucheng Road, Haidian District Beijing 100876 P.R. China Email: mayan@bupt.edu.cn Li, et al. Expires April 26, 2012 [Page 8]