Hi Tetsuya, Well, then you mean this implementation is mode 1:1 A (raised by Maoke in review on the mode 1:1 thread).
Sorry I misunderstand your meaning about this 1:1 mode. It clarifies a lot! Thanks! Best wishes Qiong On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Tetsuya Murakami < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Qiong, > > According to our current implementation, BR requires the following > configuration. > > - Rule IPv6 prefix > - Rule IPv4 prefix > - EA-bit length > - PSID offset length (optional. default value is 4) > - subnet id (optional) > > BR can maintain multiple set of the information described above as > BMR/FMR. > > CE can also have multiple set of informations as BMR/FMR. In addition, > CE can have a DMR including BR prefix/address. > > In terms of the forwarding mode, this can be configured per the map > tunnel instance which is associated with BMR. Right now, we don't allow to > configure PSID itself explicitly. This can be gotten from a delegated IPv6 > prefix with the above mapping rule. > > If the ea-bit length is set to 0, then our implementation does not > retrieve any value from a delegated IPv6 prefix which is matched to Rule > IPv6 prefix. > > Thanks, > Tetsuya Murakami > > On 2012/06/27, at 18:01, Qiong wrote: > > Hi Tetsuya, > > With regard to implementaion, what did you configure in BR ? > > In the specification, it says the BR and CE MUST be configured with the > following MAP elements. > o The End-User IPv6 prefix (Part of the normal IPv6 provisioning). > o The Basic Mapping Rule and optionally the Forwarding Mapping Rules > o The Default Mapping Rule with the BR IPv6 prefix or address > o Hub and spoke mode or Mesh mode. > > Did you configure PSID explicitly ? > > If yes, the implementation does not consistent with the specification. If > not, it can not been applied to the so-called 1:1 mode. > > Best wishes > Qiong > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Tetsuya Murakami < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> +1. >> >> In fact, we have already done the implementation prior to the current >> MAP draft. But there is no change in our implementation in order to support >> the current draft. In addition, our implementation has no limitation for >> the number of mapping rules. It depends on the available memory size only. >> So, our implementation can allow 1:1 as well as N:1. >> >> Thanks, >> Tetsuya Murakami >> >> On 2012/06/25, at 7:24, Wojciech Dec wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> taking a step back to discuss some items in more detail, and hopefully >> move this discussion forward: >> >> 1. Domain size >> The MAP architecture does not prescribe the size of a domain, and neither >> does it prescribe the number of rules to be used. There is nothing in the >> technology, except vendor implementation limits or practical sense (or >> both), to prevent MAP domains from defining 1 domain = 1 CPE. This was a >> day 1 characteristic of MAP drafts. >> Choosing to deploy or implement MAP with a configuration supporting 1 >> rule, 100 rules or 100k rules or domains is a vendor's and/or operator's >> choice. Nobody is stating that deployment is to be limited to X rules, nor >> that a near infinite number of rules is reasonable. These are general >> points that apply to DS-lite state as well as the "Light Weight 4 over 6" >> or "stateless deterministic NAT", and pretty much any technology for that >> matter. >> >> 2. Stateless DOES NOT mean configuration-less >> There appears to be confusion between the concept of stateless and >> configuration-less. MAP domains are based on configured rules, that are >> provisioned/applied through means that are currently outside the scope of >> Softwire drafts - this is configuration state, and this was and continues >> to be a characteristic of MAP. >> Further more, unlike some of the other proposals, MAP allows to optimize >> the amount of configuration needed in cases where this is viable. In other >> words, MAP does NOT exclusively force 1:1 rule configuration, but also >> allows N:1. >> >> 3. Stateless has no data plane induced state >> A major difference between stateless (eg MAP) and stateful (eg Carrier >> Grade NAT44/Ds-Lite) solutions is that the latter are characterised by >> dynamic core node forwarding state that is directly driven by user >> data-plane traffic (eg new IP flows). MAP does not rely on such dynamic >> state, never did. >> >> 4. No change of MAP spec >> The updated MAP draft does not change the MAP architecture nor its >> technical underpinnings. In fact there are no changes, bar editorial to the >> normative parts of MAP, something that is proven by existing >> implementations prior to this draft supporting the current draft. A few >> individuals appear to object to new descriptive text which highlights the >> usage of MAP, eg in 1:1. Removing that text will not change the matter that >> MAP allows such usage. Prohibiting such use by specification would actually >> require a spec change, besides being unreasonable. >> >> 5. What is the problem? >> We're pleased to see a growing understanding of MAP's applicability to >> solve problems, incl v4-v6 address independence, when needed. Given that >> the emails on this thread do not appear to bring forward any technical >> issues with the MAP solution, could we know WHY we need other solutions to >> the problem, or what is the problem that remains to be solved? >> >> Taking the liberty to speak on behalf of the other MAP authors, I would >> like to say that we all remain open for collaboration with all WG members >> in terms of arriving at a minimal set of reasonable solutions that solve >> problems that the community cares about. We also trust that our renewed WG >> leadership will finally help us all in getting there. >> >> Regards, >> Woj. >> >> On 25 June 2012 08:51, Qi Sun <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Hi Satoru, >>> >>> In MAP 1:1 mode, if there are 10000000 subscribers, there would be >>> 10000000 MAP domains which a BR has to manage. I think that will create a >>> huge mapping table on the BR, which is called 'state' that stateful >>> solutions deal with. >>> >>> Best Regards! >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> Qi Sun >>> >>> *From:* Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]> >>> *Date:* 2012-06-25 10:27 >>> *To:* Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> >>> *CC:* [email protected]; Yong Cui <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does >>> NOT reflect the consensus from the WG >>> Hi Yiu, >>> >>> No, that's a misunderstanding. >>> >>> Current MAP specify the case for ea-len is 'zero'. It is 'per-subscriber >>> mapping' in stateless manner, not to introduce 'per-flow NAT binding' or >>> 'per-subscriber state on demand'. >>> >>> cheers, >>> --satoru >>> >>> On 2012/06/25, at 2:32, Lee, Yiu wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Satoru and MAP-DT >>> > >>> > I echo what Peng and Qiong said. When the WG agreed working on the >>> >>> > stateless solution, it was very clear stated that the solution would not >>> > maintain states in the network. If the 1:1 mode changed this, this no >>> >>> > longer matched the requirements stated in the stateless motivation draft, >>> > thus, it would disqualify MAP as a solution for the motivation draft. >>> > >>> > AFAIK, the MAP Design Team could propose a change, but such a dramatic >>> >>> > change by introducing states in the network would require WG approval. I >>> > would like the chairs to clarify this. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Yiu >>> > >>> > >>> > On 6/24/12 12:21 PM, "Peng Wu" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Qiong, Satoru and all, >>> >> >>> >>> >> I should thank Qiong for pointing this out. I gotta say I'm a bit >>> >> shocked. >>> >> If I understand the procedures of IETF correctly, a WG document should >>> >> reflect the consensus of the WG. MAP is approved by the WG as a >>> >> stateless solution. As a participator in Softwire, I didn't get the >>> >> information anywhere that the MAP WG document would cover the >>> >> so-called 1:1, in fact per-user stateful mode before it was released, >>> >> not to say discuss in the WG. Don't the WG need to approve such big >>> >> change anymore? >>> >> >>> >> Now let me provide my impression as an outsider of the MAP DT. You >>> >> guys make great effort to build the solution, The address composition, >>> >> the GMA algorithm, the different types of address mapping rules. >>> >> should be quite difficult to pull together such sophisticated ideas. I >>> >> guess that's what it takes to achieve the benifits of statelessness. >>> >> And I admire that, bravo. Then, all of a sudden, you guys are saying, >>> >> let's apply this sophisticated method to the different problem, by >>> >> dropping quite some comlexity and twistting the mechanism a bit, seems >>> >> it may work. Considering the problem are now solved in a more pure and >>> >> clear way, I'm sorry but I CANNOT follow the logic here. >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Satoru Matsushima >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Qiong, >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm disagree with your opinion. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Recent changes in draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 has been discussed in >>> >>> the DT. >>> >>> >>> 2. MAP just covers so called '1:1 mode' with most granular mapping rule >>> >>> for CEs provisioning, which is as one of its characteristics. >>> >>> 3. The motivation draft does not restrict that as you stated, just >>> >>> 'assumed', it's neither 'MUST' nor 'SHOULD'. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> --satoru >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2012/06/24, at 14:35, Qiong wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> As we all know, once an individual draft is adopted as a WG draft, it >>> >>>> is owned by the whole WG, rather than just the editors. Just as Remi >>> >>> >>>> said, the normal procedure to follow is to reach WG consensus _before_ >>> >>>> posting a newly edited version. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> From draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 to >>> >>> >>>> draft-ietf-softwire-map-00, there are several changes between them. In >>> >>> >>>> particular, the newly introduced "1:1 mode", which decouples IPv4 and >>> >>>> IPv6 addressing, has never been discussed openly in the WG mailing >>> >>>> list, or even in the MAP design team either. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Actually, this "1:1 mode" is against the stateless-4v6-motivation >>> >>>> draft. The motivation draft has clearly defines the "Stateless 4/6 >>> >>>> solution" as follows: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Stateless 4/6 solution denotes a solution which does not require any >>> >>> >>>> per-user state (see Section 2.3 of [RFC1958]) to be maintained by any >>> >>>> IP address sharing function in the Service Provider's network. This >>> >>> >>>> category of solutions assumes a dependency between an IPv6 prefix and >>> >>>> IPv4 address. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> AFAIK what the WG has adopted MAP related draft is >>> >>>> draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03, NOT >>> >>> >>>> draft-ietf-softwire-map-00. And the stateless solution should ³response >>> >>> >>>> to the solution motivation document² according to the Softwire charter. >>> >>> >>>> That means draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 IS NOT QUALIFIED to be a WG >>> >>>> draft. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> We can all recall that our softwire WG has worked on stateless >>> >>>> solutions for more than one and a half years, and we have achieved a >>> >>> >>>> lot of work which has been documented in charter, stateless motivation, >>> >>>> 4rd-varients, MAP-03, etc. AFAIK all the authors have kept the basic >>> >>>> "stateless" principle and the MAP design team is also working on it >>> >>>> together to find a better algorithm, address format, etc. So it is >>> >>> >>>> really not appropriate to make such changes when MAP is adopted as a WG >>> >>>> item in such a short time. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> From this perspective, draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 can only be regarded >>> >>>> as draft-XX-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-04. It is not even the >>> >>>> output of MAP design team. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Best wishes >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ============================================== >>> >>>> Qiong Sun >>> >>>> China Telecom Beijing Research Institude >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Open source code: >>> >>>> lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/ >>> >>>> PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ >>> >>>> =============================================== >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> > > > -- > ============================================== > Qiong Sun > China Telecom Beijing Research Institude > > > Open source code: > lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/* > PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ * > =============================================== > > > > -- ============================================== Qiong Sun China Telecom Beijing Research Institude Open source code: lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/* PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ * ===============================================
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
