> On Sep 8, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sami, et al: > > Follow up the discussion during IETF 99, I took the stab putting together the > wording to describe why it is an issue for VxLAN encapsulated data frames > traversing NAT. I think this sub-section should be included in the Section 6 > of the draft-ietf-nvo3-encap. > > Linda Dunbar > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 6.10 NAT Traversal consideration > Here is an example of encapsulated traffic traversing NAT (Network Address > Translation) or, to be precise, NAPT (Network Address and Port Translation): > <ATT65120 1.jpg> > Figure x – Scenario of Overlay Tunnel traversing NAT > > If the Overlay Tunnel uses VxLAN encapsulation [RFC7348], IANA assigned Port > 4789 is used in the outer frames’ destination port field and hashed value of > inner packet is used in the outer frames’ source port field [RFC 7348]. > Using different source port numbers is for achieving better traffic > distribution among multiple paths. This approach is fine within one data > center, but can cause trouble when traversing NAT. > Many NAT devices use Source Address and Port number of the data frames coming > from private addresses to derive the source port number for the frames sent > to the public network, as shown below (assuming VxLAN is used for > encapsulation between the CPEs and the Gateway). The NAT Public Source Port > H1/H2/H3/H4 can’t be the same, otherwise the NAT device can’t tell if the > return data frames should be sent to CPE1 or CPE2. > > Private Source Address Private Source Port Private Destination > Port NAT Public Source Addr NAT public Source Port NAT > public Destination Port > CPE1 A1 4789 Public A H1 4789 > CPE1 A2 4789 Public A H2 4789 > CPE2 A3 4789 Public A H3 4789 > CPE2 A4 4789 Public A H4 4789 > > Per RFC 7348, the destination port number of the data frames returned from > the Gateway should be 4789. When the NAT device receive the data frames (with > the destination port = 4789) from the Public Network (i.e. from the Gateway > in the figure above), the NAT device has to drop the data frames as the > Destination Port 4789 is not one of H1/H2/H3/H4. > Of course, we can always modify the NAT devices to accommodate the VxLAN > encapsulated data frames. The problem is traversing the existing NAT devices > already deployed. > -------------------------------------- > > Sincerely hope the editors to draft-ietf-nvo3-encap can add those suggested > text to the draft.
Ok. Does the text below say the same thing, only shorter? Or is there more information being conveyed in your text. "Outbound traffic is encapsulated and sent to destination UDP port 4789. The remote peer also encapsulates and sends its traffic to destination UDP port 4789. Thus, to accept incoming Geneve traffic, on-path firewalls or NATs MUST permit incoming UDP port 4789 traffic from their remote Geneve peer." -d > Linda Dunbar > > _____________________________________________ > From: Linda Dunbar > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 2:31 PM > To: 'Dan Wing' <[email protected]> > Cc: NVO3 <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 should add considerations of > traversing NAPT > > > Dan, > > Thanks for pointing out the Geneve's processing for traversing VxLAN. > > First of all I wasn't proposing using reduced set of source ports. I think > that the general document needs to add the consideration for traversing NAT > because it is an issue for IPv4. Joe Touch suggested adding the entropy in > the IPv6 flow ID as a solution for IPv6. > > As for your suggested approach in Geneve: > The reverse traffic is sent to the Geneve destination port (6081), and a > firewall or NAT or NAPT mapping is necessary for UDP/6081 traffic -- on both > datacenters, which both probably have their own underlay NAPTs. Those > firewalls (or NATs or NAPTs) need to have appropriate pinholes for UDP/6081. > > Does it mean all reverse traffic only use UDP port 6081? > Or all the NAT device convert the NVE’s UDP port 6081 to multiple port > numbers? > > Thanks, > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 6:09 PM > To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> > Cc: NVO3 <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 should add considerations of > traversing NAPT > > > > On Jul 12, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sami, et al, > > > > > > > > The draft-ietf-nvo3-encap-00 is written very clear. > > > > > > > > However, the Section 6 (Common Encapsulation Considerations) should add a > > sub-section on the consideration of traversing NAPT. Encapsulated traffic > > could go to different data centers or WAN, which could go through Network > > Address Port Translation devices > > > > > > > > Using VxLAN as an example: VxLAN specification [RFC 7348] uses a set of > > Port numbers to achieve better traffic distribution among multiple paths, > > which is fine within one data center, but causing trouble when traversing > > NAPT. > > You're describing a problem with Geneve, which mimics VXLAN in that both of > them suggest using a wide range of UDP ports to help underlay ECMP and to > help receiver CPU load balancing, specifically this text of > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve: > > Source port: A source port selected by the originating tunnel > endpoint. This source port SHOULD be the same for all packets > belonging to a single encapsulated flow to prevent reordering due > to the use of different paths. To encourage an even distribution > of flows across multiple links, the source port SHOULD be > calculated using a hash of the encapsulated packet headers using, > for example, a traditional 5-tuple. Since the port represents a > flow identifier rather than a true UDP connection, the entire > 16-bit range MAY be used to maximize entropy. > > If a reduced set of source ports is used instead, as you propose, the ECMP > and CPU load balancing benefits are lost. That seems problematic. > > > NAPT use Port number to map back the source address. With a set of port > > numbers, NAPT can’t easily figure out the reverse direction traffic’s final > > IP addresses. > > The reverse traffic doesn't use the inverted 5-tuple. The reverse traffic is > sent to the Geneve destination port (6081), and a firewall or NAT or NAPT > mapping is necessary for UDP/6081 traffic -- on both datacenters, which both > probably have their own underlay NAPTs. Those firewalls (or NATs or NAPTs) > need to have appropriate pinholes for UDP/6081. > > > In addition, since the IP of packets change through NAPT device, it can > > mess up the learning of the peer NVE used in encapsulation. > > The underlay did the NAPT, so I don't see a problem with the NVE overlay > getting confused. Could you explain in more detail? > > > STUN can be used to get changed IP and port from NAPT device, but it > > requires NAPT device support STUN. > > NAPT devices are not expected to implement STUN. STUN is expected to be > implemented in the hosts behind the NAT and on a server on the other side of > the NAT (usually on a server on the Internet). See Figure 1 on page 6 of > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5389#page-6. > > > That’s not available in some scenarios. Furthermore, it can’t solve the > > aforementioned five-tuple issue. > > > > > > > > VXLAN over IPSec may be used to deal with the above problems, > > Both Geneve and VXLAN run over UDP, and both use a fixed destination port > (rather than inverted 5-tuple) for return traffic. Not sure how VXLAN > succeeds at dealing with the above problems, but I would love to learn. > > > but IPSec brings up to 88 bytes of overhead plus the key distribution > > management, which can lower the efficiency. > > Should be able to use IPsec transport mode, which is more around 40 bytes > overhead. > > -d > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggestion: Add Section 6.10 Traversing NAPT consideration. > > > > I can help to provide the text if you all think the suggestion is > > acceptable. > > > > > > > > We can discuss more in Prague. > > > > > > > > Thanks, Linda Dunbar > > > > > > > > Huawei USA IP Technology Lab > > > > 5340 Legacy Drive, > > > > Plano, TX 75024 > > > > Tel: +1 469-277 - 5840 > > > > Fax: +1 469 -277 - 5900 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nvo3 mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_nvo3&d=DwICAg&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IMDU0f3LtPMQf5XkZ06fNg&m=60T3yKN2I7oCxe8OH9mfZix-2ykSSjL-P-RoXCkZGdg&s=q7A_LzZuDp-yZnlA7Xw_N7yuLk4HO7K07jgl3Z78Ixg&e= _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
