There is no text saying 4rd-u BRs are anycasted to IPv4 network in the first place. Remi, could you clarify on this? Thanks, washam
2012/3/22 GangChen <[email protected]>: > Dear Med, > > Yes. There are no texts targeting to this topics. > I mean we could leverage the consideration in 4rd-U to build a entry > table. One more REDIRECTION action obviously should be added to the > row of "RESULTING ACTIONS". Any received fragment looking for > conditions and execute a proper action(forwarding or redirection) > > BRs > > Gang > > 2012/3/22, [email protected] <[email protected]>: >> Dear Gang, >> >> Thanks, but I failed to find the text describing how to handle two fragments >> received by two distinct BRs. >> >> Could you please point me to that text in case I miss it? >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>>-----Message d'origine----- >>>De : GangChen [mailto:[email protected]] >>>Envoyé : jeudi 22 mars 2012 08:33 >>>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >>>Cc : Washam Fan; Softwires >>>Objet : Re: [Softwires] Fragmentation in sdnat-02 >>> >>>2012/3/21, [email protected] <[email protected]>: >>>> Dear Washam, >>>> >>>> This is an issue common to all stateless solutions, >>>including deterministic >>>> NAT with (anaycast) IPv4 address pool. >>>> >>>> FWIW, we recorded this issue here: >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-stateless-4v6-04#section-5.15.2. >>>> >>>> As a solution to this issue, we proposed to implement the >>>> fragmentation-related function in one single node: any >>>received fragment is >>>> redirected to a dedicated node which will be responsible for >>>reassembly or >>>> forward the fragment to the appropriate CPE. This node must dedicate >>>> resources to handle out of order fragments. >>> >>>FYI, I see another approach doing that with a entry table + >>>redirection action, similarly like >>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-05#sect >>>ion-4.5.2. >>> >>>BRs >>> >>>Gang >>> >>>> Saying that, I can not quantify the severity of this issue in all >>>> operational networks. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Med >>>> >>>>>-----Message d'origine----- >>>>>De : [email protected] >>>>>[mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Washam Fan >>>>>Envoyé : mercredi 21 mars 2012 07:25 >>>>>À : Softwires >>>>>Objet : [Softwires] Fragmentation in sdnat-02 >>>>> >>>>>Hi Authors, >>>>> >>>>>In section 3.2, it states IPv4 address pool should be anycasted. This >>>>>introduces a risk where different incoming fragments go to different >>>>>AFTRs. Because one IPv4 address is shared between multiple >>>>>subscribers, reassemly is needed on AFTRs when receiving >>>fragments. If >>>>>different fragments go thru different AFTRs, the reassmely process >>>>>would fail and incur DoS. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>>washam >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Softwires mailing list >>>>>[email protected] >>>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Softwires mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
