[Softwires] Stateless Motivations I-D: call for review
Dear all, A new version of the motivations I-D is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-00 I updated the I-D according to the conclusions of this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg02558.html. The changes since last version are as follows: (1) The terminology has been clarified: state, session state, user-session state, stateless, ... (2) Add a discussion about IPv4 port utilisation and IPv4 port randomization as per J. Arkko's review. (3) A synthesized list of motivations has been added This is a call for review, input, correction, etc. Your review is more than welcome. Cheers, Med ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis)
Hi Med, Here is an update concerning 4rd-addmapping in this draft (sec 2.1.6): +---+-+ | Property | Value | +---+-+ |Complexity | -- | | Address Sharing Ratio | 1:2^p, p up to 14 | | Number of ports in a Port-Set | 2^p * 15/16 | | Guessing Complexity of a Valid Port | -- | | Guessing Complexity of the whole Port-Set | -- | |Excluded ports | 0-4095, to be 0-1023| | Minimal Sharing Ratio | 1:1 | | Maximal Sharing Ratio | 1:16K | |Multiple Port Sets | Supported | | Differentiated Port Sets | Supported | | DomPref Flexibility | Supported | |IPv4 traffic Isolation | Supported | |Prefix Aggregation | Preserved | |Encode Routing Bits in 64 bits | Supported | | Compliancy with RTP/RTCP | Compliant | +---+-+ The line on Multiple Port Sets has been kept, but you announcement that it will be deleted is understood and approved. It is also understood that you intend to distinguish Differentiated port set sizes Per-customer from Per customer class (a clarifying distinction) A suggestion is to also distinguish between Per-customer with PRR states from Per customer without PRR states. (The new 4rd has been designed to support the latter, which is useful for direct CPE-CPE routes. This isn't the case of all proposals.) Another criterion that differentiates proposals is whether the port set derivation depends on Domain-specific parameters, or is purely algorithmic without parameter. As we discussed, I also work on tables listing differentiating features of proposed solutions. They distinguish functional features of: - port-set specifications - IPv6 address formats of CPEs and AFTRs - Packet formats for IPv6-domain traversal They are intended to be easily modifiable, so as to be a temporary tool to facilitate discussion. FYI, Alain having expressed interest in having them in draft form before the meeting, I plan to edit the draft this week. Cheers, RD Le 5 sept. 2011 à 18:44, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com a écrit : Dear all, We have just submitted an I-D analysing the port set algorithms we have on the table. A set of properties are used to characterize the port set algorithms. This is a call for review. In particular, we invite authors of the following proposals to review their section: o [I-D.boucadair-behave-ipv6-portrange] o [I-D.xli-behave-divi] o [I-D.murakami-softwire-4v6-translation] o [I-D.murakami-softwire-4rd] o [I-D.despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping] Questions, suggestions, corrections and contributions are more than welcome. ... ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis)
Hi Rémi, Thank you for this input. As for the differentiated port sets, I'm planning to add the following properties to -01 of draft-bsd-* (need to be discussed with my co-authors): o Differentiated Port Sets (Bound to the same IP address): Capability to assign port sets of different sizes to customers assigned with the same IPv4 address. o Differentiated Port Sets (Network Level): Capability to assign port sets of different sizes to customers attached to the same network. These properties aim to assess the ability of the solution to define different classes of customers having distinct port usage needs. This feature can be supported by dedicating distinct IPv4 address pools but this impacts route aggregation. To double check the ability of 4rd-addmapping algo to support differentiated port sets without any state on the BR, could you please provide some examples to show this behaviour? FWIW, below are listed some configuration proposals: (1) Differentiated port sets bound to distinct IPv4 address * Port sets of 4096 ports when the shared IPv4 belongs to POOL_IPv4@_1 * Port sets of 1024 ports when the shared IPv4 belongs to POOL_IPv4@_2 (2) Differentiated port sets bound to the same IPv4 address (Because 0-4095 range is excluded, (n+1)*4096 + m*1024 = 2^16)) * Port sets of 4096 ports assigned to n CPEs * Port sets of 1024 ports assigned to m CPEs Thanks. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : Rémi Després [mailto:despres.r...@laposte.net] Envoyé : lundi 12 septembre 2011 12:01 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : Softwires-wg; Wojciech Dec Objet : Re: [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis) Hi Med, Here is an update concerning 4rd-addmapping in this draft (sec 2.1.6): +---+-+ | Property | Value | +---+-+ |Complexity | -- | | Address Sharing Ratio | 1:2^p, p up to 14 | | Number of ports in a Port-Set | 2^p * 15/16 | | Guessing Complexity of a Valid Port | -- | | Guessing Complexity of the whole Port-Set | -- | |Excluded ports | 0-4095, to be 0-1023| | Minimal Sharing Ratio | 1:1 | | Maximal Sharing Ratio | 1:16K | |Multiple Port Sets | Supported | | Differentiated Port Sets | Supported | | DomPref Flexibility | Supported | |IPv4 traffic Isolation | Supported | |Prefix Aggregation | Preserved | |Encode Routing Bits in 64 bits | Supported | | Compliancy with RTP/RTCP | Compliant | +---+-+ The line on Multiple Port Sets has been kept, but you announcement that it will be deleted is understood and approved. It is also understood that you intend to distinguish Differentiated port set sizes Per-customer from Per customer class (a clarifying distinction) A suggestion is to also distinguish between Per-customer with PRR states from Per customer without PRR states. (The new 4rd has been designed to support the latter, which is useful for direct CPE-CPE routes. This isn't the case of all proposals.) Another criterion that differentiates proposals is whether the port set derivation depends on Domain-specific parameters, or is purely algorithmic without parameter. As we discussed, I also work on tables listing differentiating features of proposed solutions. They distinguish functional features of: - port-set specifications - IPv6 address formats of CPEs and AFTRs - Packet formats for IPv6-domain traversal They are intended to be easily modifiable, so as to be a temporary tool to facilitate discussion. FYI, Alain having expressed interest in having them in draft form before the meeting, I plan to edit the draft this week. Cheers, RD Le 5 sept. 2011 à 18:44, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com a écrit : Dear all, We have just submitted an I-D analysing the port set algorithms we have on the table. A set of properties are used to characterize the port set algorithms. This is a call for review. In particular, we invite authors of the following proposals to review their section: o [I-D.boucadair-behave-ipv6-portrange] o [I-D.xli-behave-divi] o [I-D.murakami-softwire-4v6-translation] o [I-D.murakami-softwire-4rd] o [I-D.despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping] Questions, suggestions, corrections and
Re: [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis)
Le 12 sept. 2011 à 16:18, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com a écrit : ... To double check the ability of 4rd-addmapping algo to support differentiated port sets without any state on the BR, could you please provide some examples to show this behaviour? FWIW, below are listed some configuration proposals: With 4rd-addmapping, of port-set sizes are directly derived from lengths of delegated IPv6 prefixes. Thus, if CPEs A and B have IPv6 prefixes of respective lengths L and L+k, the port set of B is 2^k times smaller than that of A. Besides that, IPv6 prefixes are assigned without any constraint coming from IPv4. (1) Differentiated port sets bound to distinct IPv4 address * Port sets of 4096 ports when the shared IPv4 belongs to POOL_IPv4@_1 * Port sets of 1024 ports when the shared IPv4 belongs to POOL_IPv4@_2 (2) Differentiated port sets bound to the same IPv4 address (Because 0-4095 range is excluded, (n+1)*4096 + m*1024 = 2^16)) * Port sets of 4096 ports assigned to n CPEs * Port sets of 1024 ports assigned to m CPEs First, note that, because of privileged-port exclusion for fairness, port-set sizes of 4rd are 15/16 * 2^k. For (1): - POOL_IPv4@_1 has IPv6 prefixes having 4-bit Port-set IDs (and have 15/16*4096=3840 ports per CPE). - POOL_IPv4@_1 has IPv6 prefixes having 6-bit Port-set IDs (and have 15/16*1024=960 ports per CPE). For (2): Assign IPv6 prefixes of length L to n CPEs, and IPv6 prefixes of length L+2 to m CPEs. OK? Cheers, RD ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt
Status of this draft should be informational, right? Behcet A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : Multicast Extensions to DS-Lite Technique in Broadband Deployments Author(s) : Qian Wang Jacni Qin Mohamed Boucadair Christian Jacquenet Yiu L. Lee Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2011-09-09 This document proposes a solution for the delivery of multicast service offerings to DS-Lite serviced customers. The proposed solution relies upon a stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme and does not require performing any NAT operation along the path used to deliver multicast traffic. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt
No. Our intent is make I standard track document. On Sep 12, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya behcetsarik...@yahoo.com wrote: Status of this draft should be informational, right? Behcet A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : Multicast Extensions to DS-Lite Technique in Broadband Deployments Author(s) : Qian Wang Jacni Qin Mohamed Boucadair Christian Jacquenet Yiu L. Lee Filename: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt Pages : 20 Date: 2011-09-09 This document proposes a solution for the delivery of multicast service offerings to DS-Lite serviced customers. The proposed solution relies upon a stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme and does not require performing any NAT operation along the path used to deliver multicast traffic. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt
No. Our intent is make I standard track document. I just asked, because the charter says it should be informational. Let's see what the chairs say. Behcet On Sep 12, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya behcetsarik...@yahoo.com wrote: Status of this draft should be informational, right? Behcet A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : Multicast Extensions to DS-Lite Technique in Broadband Deployments Author(s) : Qian Wang Jacni Qin Mohamed Boucadair Christian Jacquenet Yiu L. Lee Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2011-09-09 This document proposes a solution for the delivery of multicast service offerings to DS-Lite serviced customers. The proposed solution relies upon a stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme and does not require performing any NAT operation along the path used to deliver multicast traffic. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt
Hi Behcet, Ah. Thanks for the heads-up . This also happened to dslite. It was charted to be informational and when the document proceeded, it beame standard track. I think it depends on how the draft ia being developed. Thanks, Yiu On Sep 12, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Behcet Sarikaya behcetsarik...@yahoo.com wrote: No. Our intent is make I standard track document. I just asked, because the charter says it should be informational. Let's see what the chairs say. Behcet On Sep 12, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya behcetsarik...@yahoo.com wrote: Status of this draft should be informational, right? Behcet A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : Multicast Extensions to DS-Lite Technique in Broadband Deployments Author(s) : Qian Wang Jacni Qin Mohamed Boucadair Christian Jacquenet Yiu L. Lee Filename: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt Pages : 20 Date: 2011-09-09 This document proposes a solution for the delivery of multicast service offerings to DS-Lite serviced customers. The proposed solution relies upon a stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme and does not require performing any NAT operation along the path used to deliver multicast traffic. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
