[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-vautrin-softwire-4rd) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Internet Engineering Task Force                          R. Despres, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 RD-IPtech
Intended status: Standards Track                                R. Penno
Expires: January 17, 2013                            Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                  Y. Lee
                                                                 Comcast
                                                                 G. Chen
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                S. Jiang
                                            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                        Freebit Co, Ltd.
                                                           July 16, 2012


     IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - a Stateless Solution (4rd)
                       draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-03

Abstract

   The 4rd automatic tunneling mechanism makes IPv4 Residual Deployment
   possible via IPv6 networks without maintaining for this per-customer
   states in 4rd-capable nodes (reverse of the IPv6 Rapid Deployment of
   6rd).  To cope with the IPv4 address shortage, customer sites can be
   assigned IPv4 addresses with restricted port sets.  In some
   scenarios, 4rd-capable customer nodes can exchange packets of their
   IPv4-only applications via stateful NAT64s that are upgraded to
   support 4rd tunnels (in addition to their IP/ICMP translation of
   [RFC6145]).

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 January 17, 2013.

Copyright Notice



Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   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.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  The 4rd Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Mapping rules and other Domain parameters  . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Reversible Packet Translations at Domain entries and
           exits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  From CE IPv6 Prefixes to 4rd IPv4 prefixes . . . . . . . . 15
     4.4.  From 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6 Addresses  . . . . . . 17
     4.5.  Fragmentation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.5.1.  Fragmentation at Domain Entry  . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.5.2.  Ports of Fragments addressed to Shared-Address CEs . . 22
       4.5.3.  Packet Identifications from Shared-Address CEs . . . . 23
     4.6.  TOS and Traffic-Class Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     4.7.  Tunnel-Generated ICMPv6 Error Messages . . . . . . . . . . 24
     4.8.  Provisioning 4rd Parameters to CEs . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   7.  Relationship with Previous Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   Appendix A.  Textual representation of Mapping rules . . . . . . . 34
   Appendix B.  Configuring multiple Mapping Rules  . . . . . . . . . 35
   Appendix C.  ADDING SHARED IPv4 ADDRESSES TO AN IPv6 NETWORK . . . 37
     C.1.  With CEs within CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     C.2.  With some CEs behind Third-party Router CPEs . . . . . . . 38
   Appendix D.  REPLACING DUAL-STACK ROUTING BY IPv6-ONLY ROUTING . . 40
   Appendix E.  ADDING IPv6 AND 4rd SERVICE TO A NET-10 NETWORK . . . 41
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41




Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


1.  Introduction

   For deployments of residual IPv4 service via IPv6 networks, the need
   for a stateless solution, i.e. one where no per-customer state is
   needed in IPv4-IPv6 gateway nodes of the provider, is expressed in
   [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation] .  This document
   specifies such a solution, named "4rd" for IPv4 Residual Deployment.
   With it, IPv4 packets are transparently tunneled across IPv6 networks
   (reverse of 6rd [RFC5969] in which IPv6 packets are statelessly
   tunneled across IPv4 networks).  While IPv6 headers are too long to
   be mapped into IPv4 headers, so that 6rd requires encapsulation of
   full IPv6 packets in IPv4 packets, IPv4 headers can be reversibly
   translated into IPv6 headers in such a way that, during IPv6 domain
   traversal, UDP packets having checksums and TCP packets are valid
   IPv6 packets.  IPv6-only middle boxes that perform deep-packet-
   inspection can operate on them, in particular for port inspection and
   web caches.

   In order to deal with the IPv4-address shortage, customers can be
   assigned shared IPv4 addresses, with statically assigned restricted
   port sets.  As such, it is a particular application of the A+P
   approach of [RFC6346].

   The design of 4rd builds on a number of previous proposals made for
   IPv4-via-IPv6 transition technologies listed in Section 8.

   In some use cases, IPv4-only applications of 4rd-capable customer
   nodes can also work with stateful NAT64s of [RFC6146], provided these
   are upgraded to support 4rd tunnels in addition their IP/ICMP
   translation of [RFC6145].  The advantage is then a more complete IPv4
   transparency than with double translation.

   Terminology is defined in Section 2.  How the 4rd model fits in the
   Internet architecture is summarized in Section 3.  The protocol
   specification is detailed in Section 4.  Section 5 and Section 6
   respectively deal with security and IANA considerations.  Previous
   proposals that influenced this specification are listed in Section 8.
   A few typical 4rd use cases are presented in Appendices.

   The key words "MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].










Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


2.  Terminology

   ISP: Internet-Service Provider.  In this document, the service it
        offers can be DSL, fiber-optics, cable, or mobile.  The ISP can
        also be a private-network operator.

   4rd (IPv4 Residual Deployment):  An extension of the IPv4 service
        where public-IPv4 addresses can be statically shared among
        several customer sites, each one being assigned an exclusive
        port set.  This service is supported across IPv6-routing
        domains.

   4rd domain (or Domain):  An ISP-operated IPv6 network across which
        4rd is supported according to the present specification.

   Tunnel packet:  An IPv6 packet that transparently conveys an IPv4
        packet across a 4rd domain.  Its header has enough information
        to reconstitute the IPv4 header at Domain exit.  Its payload is
        the original IPv4 payload.

   CE (Customer Edge):  A customer-side tunnel endpoint.  It can be in a
        node that is a host, a router, or both.

   BR (Border Relay):  An ISP-side tunnel-endpoint.  Because its
        operation is stateless (neither per CE nor per session state) it
        can be replicated in as many nodes as needed for scalability.

   4rd IPv6 address:  IPv6 address used as destination of a Tunnel
        packet sent to a CE or a BR.

   NAT64+:  An ISP NAT64 of [RFC6146] that is upgraded to support 4rd
        tunneling when IPv6 addresses it deals with are 4rd IPv6
        addresses.

   4rd IPv4 address:  A public IPv4 address or, in case of a shared IPv4
        address, a public transport address (public IPv4 address plus
        port number).

   PSID (Port-Set Identifier):  A flexible-length field that
        algorithmically identifies a port set.

   4rd IPv4 prefix:  A flexible-length prefix that may be a a public
        IPv4 prefix, a public IPv4 address, or a public IPv4 address
        followed by a PSID.







Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   Mapping rule:  A set of parameters that BRs and CEs use to derive 4rd
        IPv6 addresses from 4rd IPv4 addresses.  Mapping rules are also
        used by each CE to derive a 4rd IPv4 prefix from an IPv6 prefix
        it has been delegated.

   EA bits (Embedded Address bits):  Bits that are the same in a 4rd
        IPv4 address and in the 4rd IPv6 address derived from it.

   BR mapping rule:  The mapping rule applicable to off-domain IPv4
        addresses (addresses reachable via BRs).  It can also apply to
        some or all of CE-assigned IPv4 addresses.

   CE mapping rule:  A mapping rule that is applicable only to CE-
        assigned IPv4 addresses (shared or not).

   NAT64+ mapping rule:  Mapping rule applicable to IPv4 addresses
        reachable via a NAT64+.

   CNP (Checksum Neutrality preserver):  A field of 4rd IPv6 addresses
        that ensures that TCP-like checksums do not change when IPv4
        addresses are replaced by 4rd IPv6 addresses.

   V octet:  An octet whose value permits, within 4rd domains, to
        distinguish 4rd IPv6 addresses from other IPv6 addresses.



























Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


3.  The 4rd Model


                                 4rd DOMAIN
                       +-----------------------------+
                       |        IPv6 routing         |
                       |  Enforced ingress filtering | +----------
                  ...  |                             | |
                       |                          +------+
        Customer site  |                          |BR(s) |  IPv4
        +------------+ |      BR IPv6 prefix  --> |and/or| Internet
        | dual-stack | |                          |N4T64+|
        |         +--+ |                          +------+
        |         |CE+-+ <-- a CE IPv6 prefix        | |
        |         +--+ |                             | +----------
        |            | |                             |
        +------------+ |     <--IPv4 tunnels-->      +------------
          => Derived   |  (Mesh or hub-and-spoke     |
        4rd IPv4 prefix|         topologies)         |    IPv6
                       |                             |  Internet
                  ...  |                             |
                       |                             +------------
                       +-----------------------------+
                      <== one or several Mapping rules
                  (e.g. announced to CEs in stateless DHCPv6 )

                                 Figure 1

   How the 4rd model fits in the Internet architecture is represented in
   Figure 1.

   IPv4 packets are kept unchanged by Domain traversal except that:

   o  The IPv4 Time to live (TTL), unless it is 1 or 255 at Domain
      entry, decreases during Domain traversal by the number of
      traversed routers.  This is acceptable because it is undetectable
      end to end, and because TTL values that can be used with some
      protocols to test adjacency of communicating routers are preserved
      ([RFC4271], [RFC5082] ).  Effect on the traceroute utility, which
      uses TTL expiry to discover routers of end-to-end paths, is noted
      in Section 4.2.

   o  IPv4 packets whose lengths are =< 68 octets always have their
      Don't fragment flags DF=1 at Domain exit even if they had DF=0 at
      Domain entry.  This is acceptable because these packets are too
      short to be fragmented [RFC0791] so that their DF bits have no
      meaning.  Besides, both [RFC1191] and [RFC4821] recommend that
      sources always set DF=1.



Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   o  Unless the Tunnel-traffic-class option applies to a Domain
      (Section 4.1), IPv4 packets may an have their TOS fields modified
      after Domain traversal (Section 4.6).

   One or several Mapping rules are announced to CEs so that each one
   can derive its assigned 4rd IPv4 prefix from its delegated IPv6
   prefix, or from one of them if there are several.  If none is
   derived, but the Domain has a NAT64+, a 4rd tunnel can be used
   between the CE and the NAT64+.

   R-1:  A node whose CE is assigned a shared IPv4 address MUST include
         a NAT44 [RFC1631].  This NAT44 MUST only use external ports
         that are in the CE assigned port set.

   NOTE: This specification only concerns IPv4 communication between
   IPv4-capable endpoints.  For communication between IPv4-only
   endpoints and IPv6 only remote endpoints, the BIH specification of
   [RFC6535] can be used.  It can coexist in a node with the CE
   function, including if the IPv4-only function is a NAT44 [RFC1631].


4.  Protocol Specification

4.1.  Mapping rules and other Domain parameters

   R-2:  CEs and BRs MUST be configured with the following Domain
         parameters:

         A.  One or several Mapping rules, each one comprising:

             1.  Rule IPv4 prefix

             2.  EA-bits length

             3.  Rule IPv6 prefix

             4.  WKPs authorized (OPTIONAL)

             5.  Rule IPv6 suffix (OPTIONAL)

         B.  Domain PMTU

         C.  Hub&spoke topology (Yes or No)

         D.  Tunnel traffic class (OPTIONAL)






Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   "Rule IPv4 prefix" is used to find, by a longest match, which Mapping
   rule applies to a 4rd IPv4 address (Section 4.4).  A Mapping rule
   whose Rule IPv4 prefix is longer than /0 is a CE mapping rule.  BR
   and NAT64+ mapping rules, which must apply to all off-domain IPv4
   addresses, have /0 as their Rule IPv4 prefixes.

   "EA-bits length" is the number of bits that are common to 4rd IPv4
   addresses and 4rd IPv6 addresses derived from them.  In a CE mapping
   rule, it is also the number of bits that are common to a CE delegated
   IPv6 prefix and the 4rd IPv4 prefix derived from it.  BR and NAT64+
   mapping rules have EA-bits lengths equal to 32.

   "Rule IPv6 prefix" is the prefix that is substituted to the Rule IPv4
   prefix when a 4rd IPv6 address is derived from a 4rd IPv4 address
   (Section 4.4).  In a BR mapping rule, it MUST be a /80 whose 9th
   octet is the V octet.  In a NAT64+ mapping rule it MUST be a /80
   whose 9th octet is the "u" octet of [RFC6052].

   "WKPs authorized" may be set for mapping rules that assign shared
   IPv4 addresses to CEs.  (These rules are those whose length of the
   Rule IPv4 prefix plus the EA-bits length exceeds 32.)  If set, well-
   known ports may be assigned to some CEs having particular IPv6
   prefixes.  If not set, fairness is privileged: all IPv6 prefixes
   concerned with the Mapping rule have ports sets having identical
   values (no port set includes any of the well known ports).

   "Rule IPv6 suffix", if provided, is a field to be added after EA bits
   of a 4rd IPv6 address after its EA bits.  It is only used in Domains
   where CEs can be placed in customer sites behind third-party CPEs,
   and where these CPEs use some address bits to route packets among
   their physical ports.  A use case where it applies is presented in
   Appendix C.2.

   "Domain PMTU" is the IPv6 path MTU that the ISP can guarantee for all
   its IPv6 paths between CEs and between BRs and CEs.  It MUST be at
   least 1280 [RFC2460].

   "Hub&spoke topology", if set to Yes, requires CEs to tunnel all IPv4
   packets via BRs.  If set to No, CE-to-CE packets take the same routes
   as native IPv6 packets between the same CEs (mesh topology).

   "Tunnel traffic class", if provided, is the IPv6 traffic class that
   BRs and CEs MUST set in Tunnel packets.  In this case, evolutions of
   the IPv6 traffic class that may occur during Domain traversal are not
   reflected in TOS fields of IPv4 packets at Domain exit (Section 4.6).






Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


4.2.  Reversible Packet Translations at Domain entries and exits

   R-3:  Domain-entry nodes that receive IPv4 packets with IPv4 options
         MUST discard these packets, and return ICMPv4 error messages to
         signal IPv4-option incompatibility (Type = 12, Code = 0,
         Pointer = 20) [RFC0792].  This limitation is acceptable because
         no IPv4 option is necessary for end-to-end IPv4 operation.

   R-4:  Domain-entry nodes that receive IPv4 packets without IPv4
         options MUST convert them to Tunnel packets, with or without
         IPv6 fragment headers depending on what is needed to ensure
         IPv4 transparency (Figure 2).  Domain-exit nodes MUST convert
         them back to IPv4 packets.

         An IPv6 fragmentation header MUST be included at tunnel entry
         (Figure 2) if, and only if, one or several of the following
         conditions hold:

         *  The Tunnel_traffic_class option applies to the Domain.

         *  TTL = 1 OR TTL = 255.

         *  The IPv4 packet is already fragmented, or may be fragmented
            later on, i.e. if MF=1 OR Offset>0 OR (Total length > 68 AND
            DF=0).

         In order to optimize cases where fragmentation headers are
         unnecessary, the NAT44 of a CE that has one SHOULD send packets
         with TTL = 254.

   R-5:  In Domains whose chosen topology is Hub&spoke, BRs that receive
         IPv6 packets whose destination IPv4 addresses match a CE
         mapping rule MUST do the equivalent of reversibly translating
         their headers to IPv4 and then reversibly translate them back
         to IPv6 as though packets would be entering the Domain.
















Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


                     (A) Without IPv6 fragment header
            IPv4 packet                          Tunnel packet
       +--------------------+ :            : +--------------------+
     20|     IPv4 Header    | :    <==>    : |     IPv6 Header    | 40
       +--------------------+ :            : +--------------------+
       |     IP Payload     |      <==>      |     IP Payload     |
       |                    |     layer 4    |                    |
       +--------------------+    unchanged   +--------------------+


                     (B) With IPv6 fragment header
                                                 Tunnel packet
                                           : +--------------------+
            IPv4 packet                    : |     IPv6 Header    | 40
       +--------------------+ :            : +--------------------+
     20|     IPv4 Header    | :    <==>    : |IPv6 Fragment Header|  8
       +--------------------+ :            : +--------------------+
       |     IP Payload     |      <==>      |     IP Payload     |
       |                    |     layer 4    |                    |
       +--------------------+    unchanged   +--------------------+

                       Reversible Packet Translation

                                 Figure 2

   R-6:  Values to be set in IPv6-header fields at Domain entry are
         detailed in Table 1 (no-fragment-header case) and Table 2
         (fragment-header case).  Those to be set in IPv4 header fields
         at Domain exit are detailed in Table 3 (no-fragment-header
         case) and Table 4 (fragment-header case).

         To convey IPv4-header informations that have no equivalent in
         IPv6, some ad-hoc fields are placed in IPv6 flow labels and in
         Identification fields of IPv6 fragment headers, as detailed in
         Figure 3.
















Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


                    |0      |4                            19|
                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                    |   0   |          Add_Prot_Cksm        |
                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                               IPv6 FLOW LABEL


          0 1 2          |8              |16                           31|
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |.|.|.|    0    |    IPv4_TOS   |             IPv4_ID           |
         /-+-\-\-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        /     \ TTL_255         IPv6 IDENTIFICATION FIELD
    IPv4_DF  TTL_1            (in Fragment header if needed)

            4rd Identification fields of IPv6 Fragment headers

                                 Figure 3

     +---------------------+----------------------------------------+
     | IPv6 FIELD          | VALUE (fields from IPv4 header)        |
     +---------------------+----------------------------------------+
     | Version             | 6                                      |
     | Traffic class       | TOS                                    |
     | Add_Prot_Cksm       | Sum of Addresses and Protocol (Note 1) |
     | Payload length      | Total length - 20                      |
     | Next header         | Protocol                               |
     | Hop limit           | Time to live                           |
     | Source address      | See Section 4.4                        |
     | Destination address | See Section 4.4                        |
     +---------------------+----------------------------------------+

   IPv4-to-IPv6 Reversible Header Translation (without Fragment header)

                                  Table 1

















Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


    +-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
    | IPv6 FIELD      | VALUE (fields from IPv4 header)              |
    +-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
    | Version         | 6                                            |
    | Traffic class   | TOS OR Tunnel_traffic_class (Section 4.6)    |
    | Add_Prot_Cksm   | Sum of Addresses and Protocol (Note 1)       |
    | Payload length  | Total length - 12                            |
    | Next header     | 44 (Fragment header)                         |
    | Hop limit       | IF Time to live = 1 or 255 THEN 254          |
    |                 | ELSE Time to live (Note 2)                   |
    | Source address  | See Section 4.4                              |
    | Dest. address   | See Section 4.4                              |
    | 2nd next header | Protocol                                     |
    | Fragment offset | IPv4 Fragment offset                         |
    | M               | More-fragments flag (MF)                     |
    | IPv4_DF         | Don't-fragment flag (DF)                     |
    | TTL_1           | IF Time to live = 1 THEN 1 ELSE 0 (Note 2)   |
    | TTL_255         | IF Time to live = 255 THEN 1 ELSE 0 (Note 2) |
    | IPv4_TOS        | Type of service (TOS)                        |
    | IPv4_ID         | Identification                               |
    +-----------------+----------------------------------------------+

     IPv4-to-IPv6 Reversible Header Translation (with Fragment header)

                                  Table 2

         +-----------------+------------------------------------+
         | IPv4 FIELD      | VALUE (fields from IPv6 header)    |
         +-----------------+------------------------------------+
         | Version         | 4                                  |
         | Header length   | 5                                  |
         | TOS             | Traffic class                      |
         | Total Length    | Payload length + 20                |
         | Identification  | 0                                  |
         | DF              | 1                                  |
         | MF              | 0                                  |
         | Fragment offset | 0                                  |
         | Time to live    | Hop count                          |
         | Protocol        | Next header                        |
         | Header checksum | Computed as per [RFC0791] (Note 3) |
         | Source address  | Bits 80-111 of source address      |
         | Dest. address   | Bits 80-111 of source address      |
         +-----------------+------------------------------------+

   IPv6-to-IPv4 Reversible Header Translation (without Fragment header)

                                  Table 3




Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


    +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
    | IPv4 FIELD            | VALUE (fields from IPv6 headers)        |
    +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+
    | Version               | 4                                       |
    | Header length         | 5                                       |
    | TOS                   | Traffic class OR IPv4_TOS (Section 4.6) |
    | Total Length          | Payload length + 12                     |
    | Identification        | IPv4_ID                                 |
    | DF                    | IPv4_DF                                 |
    | MF                    | M                                       |
    | Fragment offset       | Fragment offset                         |
    | Time to live (Note 2) | IF TTL_255 = 1 THEN 255TTL_1 = 1 THEN 1 |
    |                       | ELSEIF TTL_1 = 1 THEN 1 ELSE Hop count  |
    | Protocol              | 2nd Next header                         |
    | Header checksum       | Computed as per [RFC0791] (Note 3)      |
    | Source address        | Bits 80-111 of source address           |
    | Destination address   | Bits 80-111 of destination address      |
    +-----------------------+-----------------------------------------+

     IPv6 to IPv4 Reversible Header Translation (with Fragment header)

                                  Table 4

   NOTE 1: The need to save in the IPv6 header a checksum of both IPv4
   addresses and the IPv4 protocol field results from the following
   facts: (1) Header checksums, present in IPv4 but not in IPv6, protect
   addresses or protocol integrity; (2) In IPv4, ICMP messages and null-
   checksum UDP datagrams depend on this protection because, unlike
   other datagrams, they have no other address-and-protocol integrity
   protection.  The sum MUST be performed in ordinary 2's complement
   arithmetic.

   IP-layer Packet length is another field covered by the IPv4 IP-header
   checksum.  It is not included in the saved checksum because: (1)
   doing so would have conflicted with [RFC6437] (flow labels must be
   the same in all packets of each flow); (2) ICMPv4 messages have good
   enough protection with their own checksums; (3) the UDP length field
   provides to null-checksum UDP datagrams the same level of protection
   after Domain traversal as without Domain traversal (consistency
   between IP-layer and UDP-layer lengths can be checked).











Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   NOTE 2: TTL treatment has been chosen to permit adjacency tests
   between two IPv4 nodes situated at both end of a 4rd tunnel.  TTL
   values to be preserved for this are TTL=255 and TTL=1.  For other
   values, TTL decrease between to IPV4 nodes is the same as though
   traversed IPv6 routers would be IPv4 routers.

   Effect of this TTL treatment on IPv4 traceroute (section 1 of
   [RFC1393]) is specific: (1) the number of routers of the end-to-end
   path includes traversed IPv6 routers; (2) IPv6 routers of a Domain
   are listed after IPv4 routers of Domain entry and exit; (3) the IPv4
   address shown for an IPv6 router is the IPv6-only dummy IPv4 address
   of Section 4.7; (4) the response time indicated for an IPv6 router is
   that of the next router.

   NOTE 3: Provided the sum of obtained IPv4 addresses and protocol
   matches Add_Prot_Cksm.  If not, the packet MUST be silently
   discarded.


































Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


4.3.  From CE IPv6 Prefixes to 4rd IPv4 prefixes


     +--------------------------------------------+
     |                CE IPv6 prefix              |
     +--------------------------+-----------------+
     :     Longest match        :                 :
     :  with a Rule IPv6 prefix :                 :
     :           ||             :                 :
     :           \/             : EA-bits length  :
     +--------------------------+     |           :
     |    Rule IPv6 prefix      |<----'---->:<-.->:
     +--------------------------+           :   \
                   ||           :           :  Length of the
                   \/           :           : Rule IPv6 suffix
              +-----------------+-----------+(if the rule has one)
              |Rule IPv4 prefix |  EA bits  |
              +-----------------+-----------+
              :                             :
              +-----------------------------+
              |     CE 4rd IPv4 prefix      |
              +-----------------------------+
     ________/ \_________                   :
    /                    \                  :
   :                  ____:________________/ \__
   :                 /    :                     \
   :    =< 32       :     :          > 32        :
   +----------------+     +-----------------+----+
   |IPv4 prfx or add|  OR |   IPv4 address  |PSID|
   +----------------+     +-----------------+----+
                          :       32        : || :
                                              \/

                     (by default)          (If WKPs authorized)
                        :    :                     :    :
                    +---+----+---------+           +----+-------------+
      Ports in      |> 0|PSID|any value|    OR     |PSID|  any value  |
   the CE port set  +---+----+---------+           +----+-------------+
                    : 4 :     12       :            :        16        :

           From CE IPv6 prefix to 4rd IPv4 address and Port set

                                 Figure 4








Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   R-7:  A CE whose delegated IPv6 prefix matches the Rule IPv6 prefix
         of one or several Mapping rules MUST select the CE mapping rule
         for which the match is the longest.  It then derives its 4rd
         IPv4 prefix as shown in Figure 4: (1) the CE replaces the Rule
         IPv6 prefix by the Rule IPv4 prefix and, if the found Mapping
         rule has a Domain IPv6 suffix, deletes its last S bits, where S
         is the Rule-IPv6-suffix length.  The result is the CE 4rd IPv4
         prefix. (2) If this CE 4rd IPv4 prefix has less than 32 bits,
         the CE takes it as its assigned IPv4 prefix.  If it has exactly
         32 bits, the CE takes it as its IPv4 address.  If it has more
         than 32 bits, the CE MUST takes the first 32 bits as its shared
         IPv4 address, and bits beyond the first 32 as its Port-set
         identifier (PSID).  Ports of its restricted port set are by
         default those that have any non-zero value in their first 4
         bits (the PSID offset), followed by the PSID, and followed by
         any values in remaining bits.  If the WKP authorized option
         applies to the Mapping rule, there is no 4-bit offset before
         the PSID so that all ports can be assigned.

         NOTE: The choice of the default PSID position in Port fields
         has been guided by the following objectives: (1) for fairness,
         avoid having any of the well-known ports 0-1023 in the port set
         specified by any PSID value; (2) for compatibility RTP/RTCP
         [RFC4961], include in each port set pairs of consecutive ports;
         (3) in order to facilitate operation and training, have the
         PSID at a fixed position in port fields; (4) in order to
         facilitate documentation in hexadecimal notation, and to
         facilitate maintenance, have this position nibble aligned.
         Ports that are excluded from assignment to CEs are 0-4095
         instead of just 0-1023 in a trade-off to favor nibble alignment
         of PSIDs and overall simplicity.

   R-8:  A CE whose delegated IPv6 prefix has its longest match with the
         Rule IPv6 prefix of the BR mapping rule MUST take as IPv4
         address the 32 bit that, in the delegated IPv6 prefix, follow
         this Rule IPv6 prefix.  If this is the case while the Hub&spoke
         option applies to the Domain, or if the Rule IPv6 prefix is not
         a /80, there is a configuration error in the Domain.  An
         implementation-dependent administrative action MAY be taken.

         A CE whose delegated IPv6 prefix matches the Rule IPv6 prefix
         of neither any CE Mapping rule nor the BR mapping rule, and is
         in a Domain that has a NAT64+ mapping rule, MUST be noted as
         having the unspecified IPv4 address.







Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


4.4.  From 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6 Addresses


   :            32              :  :       16      : \
   +----------------------------+  +---------------+ |
   |         IPv4 address       |  |Port_or_ICMP_ID| |  Shared-address
   +----------------------------+  +---+------+----+ |       case
   :      Longest match         :  : 4 : PSID :      |   (PSID length
   :  with a Rule IPv4 prefix   :      :length:      |  of the rule > 0)
   :       ||                   :      :      :      |    with WKPs
   :       \/                   :      :      :      |  not authorized
   +----------------+-----------+      +------+      | (PSID offset = 4)
   |Rule IPv4 prefix|IPv4 suffix|      | PSID |      |
   +----------------+-----------+      +------+      |
   :       ||        \_______    \____ |    _/       |
   :       \/                \        \|   /         |
   +--------------------------+--------+--+---+      /
   |    Rule IPv6 prefix      |  EA bits  | . |
   +--------------------------+-----------+--\+
   :                                          \
   :                                          :\_ Domain IPv6 suffix
   +------------------------------------------+  (if the rule has one)
   |                 IPv6 prefix              |
   +------------------------------------------+
   :\_______________________________         / \
   :             ___________________\_______/   \______________
   :            /                    \                         \
   :           / (CE mapping rule)    \   (BR mapping rule)     \
   :   =<64   :                        :          112            :
   +----------+---+-+-+------+---+     +--------------+-+-+------+---+
   |CE v6 prfx| 0 |V|0|v4 add|CNP|     |BR IPv6 prefix|V|0|v4 add|CNP|
   +----------+-|-+-+-|+-----+---+     +--------------+-+-+------+---+
   :   =<64   : | :8:8:  32  :16 :     :      64      :8:8:  32  :16 :
                |
          Padding to /64

                 From 4rd IPv4 address to 4rd IPv6 address

                                 Figure 5

   R-9:   BRs, and CEs that are assigned public IPv4 addresses, shared
          or not, MUST derive 4rd IPv6 addresses from 4rd IPv4 addresses
          by the steps below or their functional equivalent (Figure 5
          details the shared address case):







Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


          (1)  If Hub&spoke topology does not apply to the Domain, or if
               it applies but the IPv6 address to be derived is a source
               address from a CE or a destination address from a BR,
               find the CE mapping rule whose Rule IPv4 prefix has the
               longest match with the IPv4 address.

               If no Mapping rule is thus obtained, take the BR mapping
               rule.

               If the obtained Mapping rule assigns IPv4 prefixes to
               CEs, i.e. if length of the Rule IPv4 prefix plus EA-bits
               length is 32 - k, with >= 0, delete the last k bits of
               the IPv4 address.

               Otherwise, i.e. if length of the Rule IPv4 prefix plus
               EA-bits length is 32 + k, with k > 0, take k as PSID
               length, and append to the IPv4 address the PSID copied
               from bits p to p+3 of the Port_or_ICMP_ID field where:
               (1) p, the PSID offset, is 4 by default, and 0 if the
               WKPs authorized option applies to the rule; (2) The
               Port_or_ICMP_ID field is in bits of the IP payload that
               depend on whether the address is source or destination,
               on whether the packet is ICMP or not, and, if it is ICMP,
               whether it is an error message or an echo message.  This
               field is:

               a.  If the packet Protocol is not ICMP, the port field
                   associated with the address (bits 0-15 for a source
                   address, and bits 16-31 for a destination address).

               b.  If the packet is an ICMPv4 echo or echo-reply
                   message, the ICMPv4 Identification field (bits 32-47
                   ).

               c.  If the packet is an ICMPv4 error message, the port
                   field associated with the address in the returned
                   packet header (bits 240-255 for a source address,
                   bits 224-239 for a destination address).













Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


               NOTE 1: Using Identification fields of ICMP messages as
               port fields permits to exchange Echo requests and Echo
               replies between shared-address CEs and and IPv4 hosts
               having exclusive IPv4 addresses.  Echo exchanges between
               two shared-address CEs remain impossible, but this is a
               limitation inherent to address sharing (one reason among
               many to use IPv6).

               NOTE 2: When the PSID is taken in the port field of the
               IPv4 payload, it is, to avoid dependency on any
               particular layer-4 protocol having port fields, without
               checking that the protocol is indeed one that has a port
               field .  A packet may consequently go, in case of source
               mistake, from a BR to a shared-address CE with a protocol
               that is not supported by this CE.  In this case, the CE
               NAT44 returns an ICMPv4 "protocol unreachable" error
               message.  The IPv4 source is thus appropriately informed
               of its mistake.

          (2)  Replace in the result the Rule IPv4 prefix by the Rule
               IPv6 prefix.

          (3)  If the Mapping rule has a Domain IPv6 suffix, append it
               to the result.

          (4)  If the result is shorter than a /64, append to it a null
               padding up to 64 bits, followed by a V octet (0x03),
               followed by a null octet, and followed by the IPv4
               address.

               NOTE: The V octet is a 4rd-specific mark.  Its function
               is to ensure that 4rd IPv6 addresses are recognizable by
               CEs without any interference with the choice of subnet
               prefixes in CE sites.  (These choices may have been done
               before 4rd is enabled.)

               For this, the V octet has its "u" and "g" bits of
               [RFC4291] both set to 1, so that they differ from "u" =
               0, reserved for Interface IDs that have local-scope, and
               also differs from "u" = 1 and "g"= 0, reserved for
               unicast Interface IDs using the EUI-64 format.  Bits
               other than "u" and "g", are proposed to be 0, giving V =
               0x03. 4rd is thus the first "future technology that can
               take advantage of interface identifiers with universal
               scope" [RFC4291].  As such, it needs to be endorsed by
               the 6man working group and IANA (Section 6).





Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


               With the V octet, IPv6 packets can be routed to the 4rd
               function within a CE node based on a /80 prefix that no
               native-IPv6 address can contain.

               The V octet can also facilitate maintenance by the
               parameterless distinction it introduces between Tunnel
               packets and native-IPv6 packets: a Tunnel packet has the
               V octet in at least one of its IPv6 addresses (only in
               the CE address in case of tunnel between CE and NAT64+,
               in both addresses in case of tunnel between CE and BR or
               between two CEs).

          (5)  Add to the result a Checksum-neutrality preserver (CNP).
               Its value, in one's complement arithmetic, is the
               opposite of the sum of 16-bit fields of the IPv6 address
               other than the IPv4 address and the CNP themselves (i.e.
               5 consecutive fields in address-bits 0-79).

               NOTE: CNP guarantees that Tunnel packets are valid IPv6
               packets for all layer-4 protocols that use the same
               checksum algorithm as TCP.  This guarantee does not
               depend on where checksum fields of these protocols are
               placed in IP payloads.  (Today, such protocols are UDP
               [RFC0768], TCP [RFC0793], UDP-Lite [RFC3828], and DCCP
               [RFC5595].  Should new ones be specified, BRs will
               support them without needing an update.)

   R-10:  A CE that is assigned the unspecified IPv4 address (see
          Section 4.3) MUST use, for packets tunneled between itself and
          the Domain NAT64+, addresses as detailed in Figure 6:(a) for
          its IPv6 source, (b) as IPv6 destinations that depend on IPv4
          destinations.  The NAT64+, being NAT64 conforming [RFC6146],
          uses (b) as source addresses that depend on IPv4 sources.  It
          finds in its binding information base addresses conforming to
          (a).  Finding the V octet in them, it uses 4rd tunneling
          rather than IPv4 to IPv6 translation.















Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


         +---------------------+---------+---+-----------------+------+
     (a) |   CE IPv6 prefix    |    0    | V |        0        |  CNP |
         +---------------------+---------+---+-----------------+------+
         :      =< 64          :  >= 0   : 8 :      40         :  16  :
             4rd IPv6 address of a CE having no public IPv4 address

         <----------- Rule IPv6 prefix --------->:
         +-------------------------------+---+---+-------------+------+
     (b) |      NAT64+ IPv6 prefix       |"u"| 0 |IPv4 address |  CNP |
         +-------------------------------+---+---+-------------+------+
         :               64              : 8 : 8 :      32     :  16  :
                4rd IPv6 address of a host reachable via a NAT64+

                                     Figure 6

   R-11:  For anti-spoofing protection, CEs and BRs MUST check that the
          source address of each received Tunnel packet is that which,
          according to Section 4.4, is derived from the source 4rd IPv4
          address.  For this, the IPv4 address used to obtain the source
          4rd IPv4 address is that embedded in the IPv6 source address
          (in its bits 80-111).  (This verification is needed because
          IPv6 ingress filtering [RFC3704] applies only to IPv6
          prefixes, without guarantee that Tunnel packets are built as
          specified in Section 4.4.)

   R-12:  For additional protection against packet corruption at a link
          layer that might be undetected at this layer during Domain
          traversal, CEs and BRs SHOULD verify that source and
          destination IPv6 addresses have not been modified.  This can
          be done by checking that they remain checksum neutral (see the
          Note on CNP above).

4.5.  Fragmentation Considerations

4.5.1.  Fragmentation at Domain Entry

   R-13:  If an IPv4 packet enters a CE or BR with a size such that the
          derived Tunnel packet would be longer than the Domain PMTU,
          the packet has to be either discarded or fragmented.  The
          Domain-entry node MUST discard if it the packet has DF=1, with
          an ICMP error message returned to the source.  It MUST
          fragment it otherwise, with the payload of each fragment not
          exceeding PMTU - 48.  The first fragment has its offset equal
          to the received offset.  Following fragments have offsets
          increased by lengths of previous-fragments payloads.
          Functionally, fragmentation is supposed to be done in IPv4
          before applying to each fragment the reversible header
          translation of Section 4.2.



Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


4.5.2.  Ports of Fragments addressed to Shared-Address CEs

   Because ports are available only in first fragments of IPv4
   fragmented packets, a BR needs a mechanism to send to the right
   shared-address CEs all fragments of fragmented packets.

   For this, a BR MAY systematically reassemble fragmented IPv4 packets
   before tunneling them.  But this consumes large memory space, opens
   denial-of-service-attack opportunities, and can significantly
   increase forwarding delays.  This is the reason for the following
   requirement:

   R-14:  BRs SHOULD support an algorithm whereby received IPv4 packets
          can be forwarded on the fly.  The following is an example of
          such algorithm:

          (1)  At BR initialization, if at least one CE mapping rule
               concerns shared IPV4 addresses (length of Rule IPv4
               prefix + EA-bits length > 32), the BR initializes an
               empty "IPv4-packet table" whose entries have the
               following items:

                  - IPv4 source

                  - IPv4 destination

                  - IPv4 identification.

                  - Destination port.

          (2)  When the BR receives an IPv4 packet whose matching
               Mapping rule is one of shared addresses (length of Rule
               IPv4 prefix + EA-bits length > 32), the the BR searches
               the table for an entry whose IPv4 source, IPv4
               destination, and IPv4 Identification, are those of the
               received packet.  The BR then performs actions detailed
               in Table 5 depending on which conditions hold.














Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


       +---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
       | - CONDITIONS -            |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
       | First Fragment (offset=0) | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N |
       | Last fragment (MF=0)      | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N |
       | An entry has been found   | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N |
       | ------------------------- |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
       | - RESULTING ACTIONS -     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
       | Create a new entry        | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
       | Use port of the entry     | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | - |
       | Update port of the entry  | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
       | Delete the entry          | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
       | Forward the packet        | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | - |
       +---------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

                                        Table 5

          (3)  The BR performs garbage collection for table entries that
               remain unchanged for longer than some limit.  This limit,
               normally longer that the maximum time normally needed to
               reassemble a packet is not critical.  It should however
               not be longer than 15 seconds [RFC0791].

   R-15:  For the above algorithm to be effective, CEs that are assigned
          shared IPv4 addresses MUST NOT interleave fragments of several
          fragmented packets.

   R-16:  CEs that are assigned IPv4 prefixes, and are in nodes that
          route public IPv4 addresses rather than only using NAT44s,
          MUST have the same behavior as described just above for BRs.

4.5.3.  Packet Identifications from Shared-Address CEs

   When packets go from CEs that share the same IPv4 address to a common
   destination, a precaution is needed to guarantee that packet
   Identifications set by sources are different.  Otherwise, packet
   reassembly at destination could otherwise be confused because it is
   based only on source IPv4 address and Identification.  Probability of
   such confusions may in theory be very low but, in order to avoid
   creating new attack opportunities, a safe solution is needed.

   R-17:  A CE that is assigned a shared IPv4 address MUST only use
          packet Identifications that have the CE PSID in their bits 0
          to PSID length - 1.

   R-18:  A BR or a CE that receives a packet from a shared-address CE
          MUST check that bits 0 to PSID length - 1 of their packet
          Identifications are equal to the PSID found in source 4rd IPv4
          address.



Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


4.6.  TOS and Traffic-Class Considerations

   IPv4 TOS and IPv6 Traffic class have the same semantic, that of the
   differentiated-services field, or DS field, specified in [RFC2474]
   and [RFC6040].  Their first 6 bits contain a differentiated services
   codepoint (DSCP), and their two last bits can convey explicit
   congestion notifications (ECNs), which both may evolve during Domain
   traversal.  [RFC2983] discusses how the DSCP can be handled by tunnel
   end points.  The Tunnel traffic class option permits to ignore DS-
   field evolutions occurring during Domain traversal, if the desired
   behavior is that of generic tunnels conforming to [RFC2473].

   R-19:  Unless the Tunnel traffic class option is configured for the
          Domain, BRs and CEs MUST copy the IPv4 TOS into the IPv6
          Traffic class at Domain entry, and copy back the IPv6 Traffic
          class into the IPv4 TOS at Domain exit.

   R-20:  If the Tunnel traffic class option is configured for a Domain,
          BRs and CEs MUST at Domain entry take the configured Tunnel
          traffic class as IPv6 Traffic class, and copy the received
          IPv4 TOS into the IPv4_TOS of the fragment header (Figure 3).
          At Domain exit, they MUST copy back the IPv4_TOS of the
          fragment header into the IPv4 TOS.

4.7.  Tunnel-Generated ICMPv6 Error Messages

   If an Tunnel packet is discarded on its way across a 4rd domain
   because of an unreachable destination, an ICMPv6 error message is
   returned to the IPv6 source.  For the IPv4 source of the discarded
   packet to be informed of packet loss, the ICMPv6 message has to be
   converted into an ICMPv4 message.

   R-21:  If a CE or BR receives an ICMPv6 error message [RFC4443], it
          MUST synthesize an ICMPv4 error packet [RFC0792].  This packet
          MUST contain the first 8 octets of the discarded-packet IP
          payload.  The reserved IPv6-only dummy address TBD MUST be
          used as its source address (see Section 6).

          Like in [RFC6145], ICMPv6 Type = 1 and Code = 0 (Destination
          unreachable, No route to destination") MUST be translated into
          ICMPv4 Type = 3 and Code = 0 (Destination unreachable, Net
          unreachable), and ICMPv6 Type = 3 and Code = 0 (Time exceeded,
          Hop limit exceeded in transit) MUST be translated into ICMPv4
          Type = 11 and Code = 0 (Destination unreachable, Net
          unreachable).






Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


4.8.  Provisioning 4rd Parameters to CEs

   Domain parameters listed in Section 4.1 are subject to the following
   constraints:

   R-22:  Each Domain MUST have a BR mapping rule and/or a NAT64+
          mapping rule.  (The BR mapping rule is only used by CEs that
          are assigned public IPv4 addresses, shared or not.  The NAT64+
          mapping rule is only used by CEs that are assigned the
          unspecified IPv4 address (Section 4.3), and therefore need an
          ISP NAT64 to reach IPv4 destinations.


   R-23:  Each CE and each BR MUST support up to 32 Mapping rules.

          This number of is to ensure that independently acquired CEs an
          BR nodes can always interwork.  (Its value, which is not
          critical, can easily be changed if another value would be
          found more desirable by the WG.)

          ISPs that need Mapping rules for more IPv4 prefixes than this
          number SHOULD split their networks into multiple Domains.
          Communication between these domains can be done in IPv4, or by
          some implementation-dependent but equivalent other means.

   R-24:  For mesh topologies, where CE-CE paths don't go via BRs, all
          mapping rules of the Domain MUST be sent to all CEs.  For hub-
          and-spoke topologies, where all CE-CE paths go via BRs, each
          CE MAY be sent only the BR mapping rule of the Domain plus, if
          different, the CE mapping rule that applies to its CE IPv6
          prefix.

   R-25:  In a Domain where the chosen topology is Hub&spoke, all CEs
          MUST have IPv6 prefixes that match a CE mapping rule.
          (Otherwise, packets sent to CEs whose IPv6 prefixes would
          match only the BR mapping rule would, with longest-match
          selected routes, be routed directly to these CEs.  This would
          be contrary to the Hub&spoke requirement).

   R-26:  CEs MUST be able to acquire parameters of 4rd domains
          (Section 4.1) in DHCPv6 (ref.  [RFC2131]).  Formats of DHCPv6
          options to be used are detailed in Figure 7 and Figure 8, with
          field values specified after each Figure.








Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | option-code = OPTION_4RD_RULE |         option-length         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  prefix4-len  |  prefix6-len  |    ea-len     |sfx-len|  sfx  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                    rule-ipv4-prefix                         |W|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     +                                                               +
     |                        rule-ipv6-prefix                       |
     +                                                               +
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 DHCPv6 option for Mapping-rule parameters

                                 Figure 7

   o  option-code: OPTION_4RD_RULE (see Section 6)

   o  option-length: 20

   o  prefix4-len: number of bits of the Rule IPv4 prefix

   o  prefix6-len: number of bits of the Rule IPv6 prefix

   o  ea-len: EA-bits length

   o  sfx-len: number of bits of the Rule IPv6 suffix (0 to 4)

   o  sfx: the Rule IPv6 suffix, left aligned

   o  rule-ipv4-prefix: the Rule IPv4 prefix, left aligned

   o  W: WKP authorized, = 1 if set

   o  rule-ipv6-prefix: Rule IPv6 prefix, left aligned












Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   option-code = OPTION_4RD    |         option-length         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |H|      0    |T| traffic-class |         domain-pmtu           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       DHCPv6 option for non-mapping-rule parameters of 4rd-domains

                                 Figure 8

   o  option-code: OPTION_4RD (see Section 6)

   o  option-length: 4

   o  H: Hub&spoke topology (= 1 if Yes)

   o  T: Traffic-class flag (= 1 if a Tunnel traffic class is provided)

   o  traffic-class: Tunnel-traffic class

   o  domain-pmtu: Domain PMTU (at least 1280)


   Other means than DHCPv6 that may prove useful to provide 4rd
   parameters to CEs are off-scope for this document.  The same or
   similar parameter formats would however be recommended to facilitate
   training and operation.


5.  Security Considerations

   Spoofing attacks

      With IPv6 ingress filtering effective in the Domain [RFC3704], and
      with consistency checks between 4rd IPv4 and IPv6 addresses of
      Section 4.4, no spoofing opportunity in IPv4 is introduced by 4rd.

   Routing-loop attacks

      Routing-loop attacks that may exist in some automatic-tunneling
      scenarios are documented in [RFC6324].  No opportunity for
      routing-loop attacks has been identified with 4rd.







Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   Fragmentation-related attacks

      As discussed in Section 4.5, each BR of a Domain that assigns
      shared IPv4 should maintain a dynamic table for fragmented packets
      that go to these shared-address CEs.

      This opens a BNR vulnerability to a denial of service attack from
      hosts that would send very large numbers of first fragments and
      would never send last fragments having the same packet
      identifications.  This vulnerability is inherent to IPv4 address
      sharing, be it static or dynamic.  Compared to what it is with
      algorithms that reassemble IPv4 packets in BRs, it is however
      significantly mitigated by the algorithm of Section 4.5.2 which
      uses much less memory space.


6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate the following:

   o  Two DHCPv6 option codes TBD1 and TBD2 for OPTION_4RD_RULE and
      OPTION_4RD of Section 4.8 respectively (to be added to section
      24.3 of [RFC3315]

   o  A reserved IPv4 address to be used as public IPv4 address in IPv6
      nodes ICMPv4 messages due to ICMPv6 error messages.  Its proposed
      value is 192.70.192.254 (Section 4.7).  This address is taken in
      the /24 range that has been proposed for a similar purpose in
      [draft-xli-behave-icmp-address-04].  It is subject to IANA
      confirmation.

   o  An IPv6 Interface-ID type reserved for 4rd (the V octet of
      Section 4.4).  For this creation of new registry is suggested for
      Interface-ID types of unicast addresses that have neither local
      scope nor the universal scope of Modified EUI-64 format
      [RFC4291]).  This registry is intended to be used for new
      Interface-ID types that may be useful in the future.


7.  Relationship with Previous Works

   The present specification has been influenced by many previous IETF
   drafts, in particular those accessible at
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xxxx where xxxx are the following
   (in order of their first versions):

   o  bagnulo-behave-nat64 (2008-06-10)




Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   o  xli-behave-ivi (2008-07-06)

   o  despres-sam-scenarios (2008-09-28)

   o  boucadair-port-range (2008-10-23)

   o  ymbk-aplusp (2008-10-27)

   o  xli-behave-divi (2009-10-19)

   o  thaler-port-restricted-ip-issues (2010-02-28)

   o  cui-softwire-host-4over6 (2010-05-05)

   o  xli-behave-divi-pd (2011-07-02)

   o  dec-stateless-4v6 (2011-03-05)

   o  matsushima-v6ops-transition-experience (2011-03-07)

   o  despres-intarea-4rd (2011-03-07)

   o  deng-aplusp-experiment-results (2011-03-08)

   o  murakami-softwire-4rd (2011-07-04)

   o  operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation (2011-05-05)

   o  murakami-softwire-4v6-translation (2011-07-04)

   o  despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping (2011-08-19)

   o  boucadair-softwire-stateless-requirements (2011-09-08)

   o  chen-softwire-4v6-add-format (2011-10-2)

   o  mawatari-softwire-464xlat (2011-10-16)

   o  mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option (2011-10-24)

   o  mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port (2011-11-25)

   o  mdt-softwire-map-translation (2012-01-10)

   o  mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation (2012-01-27)






Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


8.  Acknowledgements

   This specification has benefited over several years from independent
   proposals, questions, comments, constructive suggestions, and useful
   criticisms, coming from numerous IETF contributors.

   Authors would like to express recognition to all these contributors,
   and more especially to the following, in alphabetical order of first
   names: Brian Carpenter, Behcet Sarikaya, Bing Liu, Cameron Byrne,
   Congxiao Bao, Dan Wing, Erik Kline, Francis Dupont, Gabor Bajko, Gang
   Chen, Hui Deng, Jan Zorz, Jacni Quin (who has be an active co-author
   of some earlier versions of this specification), James Huang, Jaro
   Arkko, Laurent Toutain, Leaf Yeh, Lorenzo Colitti, Mark Townsley,
   Marcello Bagnulo, Mohamed Boucadair, Nejc Skoberne, Olaf Maennel, Ole
   Troan, Olivier Vautrin, Peng Wu, Qiong Sun, Rajiv Asati, Ralph Droms,
   Randy Bush, Satoru Matsushima, Simon Perreault, Stuart Cheshire,
   Teemu Savolainen, Tetsuya Murakami, Tomasz Mrugalski, Tina Tsou,
   Tomasz Mrugalski, Washam Fan, Wojciech Dec, Xiaohong Deng, Xing Li,
   Yu Fu.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, September 1981.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC2003]  Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
              October 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS



Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2983]  Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
              RFC 2983, October 2000.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, September 2001.

   [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.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [RFC5082]  Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C.
              Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
              (GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.

   [RFC6040]  Briscoe, B., "Tunnelling of Explicit Congestion
              Notification", RFC 6040, November 2010.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              October 2010.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
              Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
              Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
              draft-ietf-pcp-base-19 (work in progress), December 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation]
              Boucadair, M., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O.,
              Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Stateless IPv4
              over IPv6 Migration Solutions",
              draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-00 (work in
              progress), September 2011.

   [I-D.shirasaki-nat444]
              Yamagata, I., Shirasaki, Y., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,



Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


              and H. Ashida, "NAT444", draft-shirasaki-nat444-04 (work
              in progress), July 2011.

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              August 1980.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

   [RFC1393]  Malkin, G., "Traceroute Using an IP Option", RFC 1393,
              January 1993.

   [RFC1631]  Egevang, K. and P. Francis, "The IP Network Address
              Translator (NAT)", RFC 1631, May 1994.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC2473]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
              IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

   [RFC3704]  Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
              Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.

   [RFC3828]  Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and
              G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol
              (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.

   [RFC4961]  Wing, D., "Symmetric RTP / RTP Control Protocol (RTCP)",
              BCP 131, RFC 4961, July 2007.

   [RFC5595]  Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
              (DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, September 2009.

   [RFC5969]  Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
              Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
              RFC 5969, August 2010.

   [RFC6145]  Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
              Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.




Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              April 2011.

   [RFC6219]  Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The
              China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI
              Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6
              Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219, May 2011.

   [RFC6324]  Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack Using
              IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed
              Mitigations", RFC 6324, August 2011.

   [RFC6346]  Bush, R., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the
              IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346, August 2011.

   [RFC6437]  Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, November 2011.

   [RFC6535]  Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
              Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535, February 2012.

























Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


Appendix A.  Textual representation of Mapping rules

   In the next sections, each Mapping rule will be represented as
   follows, using 0bXXX to represent binary number XXX, and square
   brackets [ ] for what is optional:

   {Rule IPv4 prefix, EA-bits length, Rule IPv6 prefix[, Rule IPv6 suffix] [, WKPs authorized]}

    EXAMPLES:
     {0.0.0.0/0, 32, 2001:db8:0:1:300::/80}
                                   a BR mapping rule
     {198.16.0.0/14, 22, 2001:db8:4000::/34}
                                   a CE mapping rule
     {0.0.0.0/0, 32, 2001:db8:0:1::/80}
                                   a NAT64+ mapping rule)
     {198.16.0.0/14, 22, 2001:db8:4000::/34, 0b0010, Yes}
                                   a CE mapping rule with a suffix
                                   and Hub&spoke Topology

































Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


Appendix B.  Configuring multiple Mapping Rules

   As far as mapping rules are concerned, the simplest deployment model
   is that in which the Domain has only one rule (the BR mapping rule).
   To assign an IPv4 address to a CE in this model, an IPv6 /112 is
   assigned to it comprising the BR /64 prefix, the V octet, a null
   octet, and the IPv4 address.  This model has however the following
   limitations: (1) shared IPv4 addresses are not supported; (2) IPv6
   prefixes used for 4rd are too long to be used also for native IPv6
   addresses; (3) if the IPv4 address space of the ISP is split with
   many disjoint IPv4 prefixes, the IPv6 routing plan must be as complex
   as an IPv4 routing plan based on these prefixes.

   With more mapping rules, CE prefixes used for 4rd can be those used
   for native IPv6.  How to choose CE mapping rules for a particular
   deployment needs not being standardized.

   The following is only a particular pragmatic approach that can be
   used for various deployment scenarios.  It is used in some of the use
   cases that follow.

   (1)  Select a "Common_IPv6_prefix" that will appear at the beginning
        of all 4rd CE IPv6 prefixes.

   (2)  Choose all IPv4 prefixes to be used, and assign one of them to
        each CE mapping rule i.

   (3)  For each CE mapping rule i, do the following:

        A.  choose the length of its Rule IPv6 prefix (possibly the same
            for all CE mapping rules).

        B.  Determine its PSID_length(i).  A CE mapping rule that
            assigns shared addresses with a sharing ratio 2^Ki, has
            PSID_length = Ki.  A CE mapping rule rule that assigns IPv4
            prefixes of length L < 32, is considered to have a negative
            PSID_length = L - 32.

        C.  Derive EA-bits length (i) = 32 - L(Rule IPv4 prefix(i)) +
            PSID_length(i).

        D.  Derive the length of Rule_code(i), the prefix to be appended
            to the Common prefix to get the Rule IPv6 prefix of rule i:

              L(Rule_code(i)) = L(CE IPv6 prefix(i))
                               - L(Common_IPv6_prefix]
                               - (32 - L(Rule IPv4 prefix(i)))
                               - PSID_length(i)



Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


        E.  Derive Rule_code(i) with the following constraints: (1) its
            length is L(Rule_code(i); it does not overlap with any of
            the previously obtained Rule codes (for instance, 010, and
            01011 do overlap, while 00, 011, and 010 do not); it has the
            lowest possible value as a fractional binary number (for
            instance, 0100 < 10 < 11011 < 111).  Thus, rules whose
            Rule_code lengths are 4, 3 , 5, and 2, give Rule_codes 0000,
            001, 00010, and 01)

        F.  Take Rule IPv6 prefix(i)= the Common_IPv6_prefix followed by
            Rule_code(i).


    :<--------------------- L(CE IPv6 prefix(i)) --------------------->:
    :                                                                  :
    :                       32 - L(Rule IPv4 prefix(i))  PSID_length(i):
    :                                                \             |   :
    :                                      :<---------'--------><--'-->:
    :                                      :              ||           :
    :                                      :              \/           :
    :                            :<------->:<--- EA-bits length(i) --->:
    :                          L(Rule code(i))
    :                            :         :
    +----------------------------+---------+
    |    Common IPv6 prefix      |Rule code|
    |                            |   (i)   |
    +----------------------------+---------+
    :<------ L(Rule IPv6 prefix(i)) ------>:

                                    Figure 9





















Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


Appendix C.  ADDING SHARED IPv4 ADDRESSES TO AN IPv6 NETWORK

C.1.  With CEs within CPEs

   We consider an ISP that offers IPv6-only service to up to 2^20
   customers.  Each customer is delegated a /56, starting with common
   prefix 2001:db8:0::/36.  It wants to add public IPv4 service to
   customers that are 4rd-capable.  It prefers to do it with stateless
   operation in its nodes, but has largely less IPv4 addresses than IPv6
   addresses so that a sharing ratio is necessary.

   The only IPv4 prefixes it can use are 192.8.0.0/15, 192.4.0.0/16,
   192.2.0.0/16, and 192.1.0.0/16 (neither overlapping nor
   aggregetable).  This gives 2^(32-15) + 3*2^(32-16) IPv4 addresses,
   i.e. 2^18 + 2^16).  For the 2^20 customers to have the same sharing
   ratio, the number of IPv4 addresses to be shared has to be a power of
   2.  The ISP can therefore renounce to use one /16, say the last one.
   (Whether it could be motivated to return it to its Internet Registry
   is off-scope for this document.)  The sharing ratio to apply is then
   2^20 / 2^18 = 2^2 = 4, giving a PSID length of 2.

   Applying principles of Appendix B with L[Common IPv6 prefix] = 36,
   L[PSID] = 2 for all rules, and L[CE IPv6 prefix(i)] = 56 for all
   rules, Rule codes and Rule IPv6 prefixes are:

   +--------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+
   | CE Rule IPv4 | EA     | Rule-Code | Code      | CE Rule IPv6      |
   | prefix       | bits   | length    | (binary)  | prefix            |
   |              | length |           |           |                   |
   +--------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+
   | 192.8.0.0/15 | 19     | 1         | 0         | 2001:db8:0::/37   |
   | 192.4.0.0/16 | 18     | 2         | 10        | 2001:db8:800::/38 |
   | 192.2.0.0/16 | 18     | 2         | 11        | 2001:db8:c00::/38 |
   +--------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-------------------+

   Mapping rules are then the following:

              {192.8.0.0/15, 19, 2001:0db8:0000::/37}
              {192.4.0.0/16, 18, 2001:0db8:0800::/38}
              {192.2.0.0/16, 18, 2001:0db8:0c00::/38}
              {0.0.0.0/0,    32, 2001:0db8:0000:0001:300::/80}










Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   The CE whose IPv6 prefix is, for example, 2001:db8:0bbb:bb00::/56,
   derives its IPv4 address and its port set as follows (Section 4.3):

       CE IPv6 prefix     : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb00::/56
       Rule IPv6 prefix(i): 2001:0db8:0800::/38 (longest match)
       EA-bits length(i)  : 18
       EA bits            : 0b11 1011 1011 1011 1011
       Rule IPv4 prefix(i): 0b1100 0000 0000 0100 (192.4.0.0/16)
       IPv4 address       : 0b1100 0000 0000 0100 1110 1110 1110 1110
                          : 192.4.238.238
       PSID               : 0b11
       Ports              : 0bYYYY 11XX XXXX XXXX
                            with YYYY > 0, and X...X any value

   An IPv4 packet sent to address 192.4.238.238 and port 7777 is
   tunneled to the IPv6 address obtained as follows (Section 4.4):

       IPv4 address       : 192.4.238.238 (0xC004 EEEE)
                          : 0b1100 0000 0000 0100 1110 1110 1110 1110
       Rule IPv4 prefix(i): 192.4.0.0/16  (longest match)
                          : 0b1100 0000 0000 0100
       IPv4 suffix (i)    : 0b1110 1110 1110 1110
       EA-bits length (i) : 18
       PSID length (i)    : 2  (= 16 + 18 - 32)
       Port field         : 0b 0001 1110 0110 0001 (7777)
       PSID               : 0b11
       Rule IPv6 prefix(i): 2001:0db8:0800::/38
       CE IPv6 prefix     : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb00::/56
       IPv6 address       : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb00:300:c004:eeee:YYYY
                            with YYYY = the computed CNP

C.2.  With some CEs behind Third-party Router CPEs

   We now consider an ISP that has the same need as in the previous
   section except that, instead of using only its own IPv6
   infrastructure, it uses that of a third-party provider, and that some
   of its customers use CPEs of this provider to use specific services
   it offers.  In these CPEs, a non-zero index is used to route IPv6
   packets to the physical port to which CEs are attached, say 0x2.
   Each such CPE delegates to the CE nodes the customer-site IPv6 prefix
   followed by this index.

   The ISP is supposed to have the same IPv4 prefixes as in the previous
   use case, 192.8.0.0/15, 192.4.0.0/16, and 192.2.0.0/16, and to use
   the same Common IPv6 prefix, 2001:db8:0::/36.






Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   We also assume that only a minority of customers use third-party
   CPEs, so that it is sufficient to use only one of the two /16s for
   them.

   Mapping rules, are then (see Appendix C.1):

             {192.8.0.0/15, 19, 2001:0db8:0000::/37}
             {192.4.0.0/16, 18, 2001:0db8:0800::/38, 0b0010}
             {192.2.0.0/16, 18, 2001:0db8:0c00::/38}
             {0.0.0.0/0,    32, 2001:0db8:0000:0001:3000::/80}

   CEs that are behind third-party CPEs derive their own IPv4 addresses
   and port sets as in Appendix C.1, except that, because the Mapping
   rule that applies to their IPv6 prefixes have a Rule IPv6 suffix,
   they delete this suffix from the end of their delegated IPv6 prefixes
   before deriving their 4rd IPv4 prefixes (Section 4.3).

   In a BR, and also in a CE if the topology is mesh, the IPv6 address
   that is derived from IPv4 address 192.4.238.238 and port 7777 is
   obtained as in the previous section, except for the two last steps
   which are modified:

   IPv4 address       : 192.4.238.238 (0xC004 EEEE)
                      : 0b1100 0000 0000 0100 1110 1110 1110 1110
   Rule IPv4 prefix(i): 192.4.0.0/16  (longest match)
                      : 0b1100 0000 0000 0100
   IPv4 suffix (i)    : 0b1110 1110 1110 1110
   EA-bits length (i) : 18
   PSID length (i)    : 2  (= 16 + 18 - 32)
   Port field         : 0b 0001 1110 0110 0001 (7777)
   PSID               : 0b11
   Rule IPv6 prefix(i): 2001:0db8:0800::/38
   CE IPv6 prefix       : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb20::/60 (suffix 0x2 appended)
   IPv6 address         : 2001:0db8:0bbb:bb20:3000:192.4.238.238:YYYY
                          with YYYY = the computed CNP
















Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


Appendix D.  REPLACING DUAL-STACK ROUTING BY IPv6-ONLY ROUTING

   In this use case, we consider an ISP that offers IPv4 service with
   public addresses individually assigned to its customers.  It also
   offers IPv6 service, having deployed for this dual-stack routing.
   Because it provides its own CPEs to customers, it can upgrade all its
   CPEs to support 4rd.  It wishes to take advantage of this capability
   to replace dual-stack routing by IPv6-only routing without changing
   any IPv4 address or IPv6 prefix.

   For this, the ISP can use the single-rule model described at the
   beginning of Appendix B.  If the prefix routed to BRs is chosen to
   start with 2001:db8:0:1::/64, this rule is:

      {0.0.0.0/0, 32, 2001:db8:0:1:3000::/80}

   All what is needed in the network before disabling IPv4 routing is
   the following:

   o  In all routers, where there is an IPv4 route toward x.x.x.x/n, add
      a parallel route toward 2001:db8:0:1:3000:x.x.x.x::/(80+n)

   o  Where IPv4 address x.x.x.x was assigned to a CPE, now delegate
      IPv6 prefix 2001:db8:0:1:3000:x.x.x.x::/112.

   NOTE: In parallel with this deployment, or after it, shared IPv4
   addresses can be assigned to IPv6 customers.  It is sufficient that
   IPv4 prefixes used for this be different from those used for
   exclusive-address assignments.  Under this constraint, Mapping rules
   can be set up according to the same principles as those of
   Appendix C.




















Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


Appendix E.  ADDING IPv6 AND 4rd SERVICE TO A NET-10 NETWORK

   In this use case, we consider an ISP that has only deployed IPv4,
   possibly because some of its network devices are not yet IPv6
   capable.  Because it did not have enough IPv4 addresses, it has
   assigned private IPv4 addresses of [RFC1918] to customers, say
   10.x.x.x.  It thus supports up to 2^24 customers (a "Net-10" network,
   using the NAT444 model of [I-D.shirasaki-nat444]).  It wishes to
   offer IPv6 service without further delay, using for this 6rd
   [RFC5969].  It also wishes to offer incoming IPv4 connectivity to its
   customers with a simpler solution than that of PCP
   [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].

   The IPv6 prefix to be used for 6rd is supposed to be 2001:db8::/32,
   and the public IPv4 prefix to be used for shared addresses is
   supposed to be 192.16.0.0/16 (0xc610).  The resulting sharing ratio
   is 2^24 / 2^(32-16) = 256, giving a PSID length of 8.

   The ISP installs one or several BRs, at its border to the public IPv4
   Internet.  They support 6rd, and 4rd above it.  The BR prefix /64 is
   supposed to be that which is derived from IPv4 address 10.0.0.1 (i.e.
   2001:db8:0:100:/64).

   In accordance with [RFC5969], 6rd BRs are configured with the
   following parameters IPv4MaskLen = 8, 6rdPrefix = 2001:db8::/32;
   6rdBRIPv4Address = 192.168.0.1 (0xC0A80001).

   4rd Mapping rules are then the following:

   {192.16.0.0/16, 24, 2001:db8:0:0:3000::/80}
   {0.0.0.0/0,      32, 2001:db8:0:100:3000:/80,}

   Any customer device that supports 4rd in addition to 6rd can then use
   its assigned shared IPv4 address with 240 assigned ports.

   If its NAT44 supports port forwarding to provide incoming IPv4
   connectivity (statically, or dynamically with UPnP an/or NAT-PMP), it
   can use it with ports of the assigned port set (a possibility that
   does not exist in Net-10 networks without 4rd/6rd).












Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Remi Despres (editor)
   RD-IPtech
   3 rue du President Wilson
   Levallois,
   France

   Email: despres.remi@laposte.net


   Reinaldo Penno
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drivee
   San Jose, California  95134
   USA

   Email: repenno@cisco.com


   Yiu Lee
   Comcast
   One Comcast Center
   Philadelphia, PA  1903
   USA

   Email: Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com


   Gang Chen
   China Mobile
   53A, Xibianmennei Ave.
   Xuanwu District, Beijing  100053
   China

   Email: phdgang@gmail.com


   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus - No.156 Beijing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing,   100095
   P.R. China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com






Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft  Stateless IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd)       July 2012


   Maoke Chen
   Freebit Co, Ltd.
   13F E-space Tower, Maruyama-cho 3-6
   Shibuya-ku, Tokyo,   150-0044
   Japan

   Email: fibrib@gmail.com












































Despres, et al.         Expires January 17, 2013               [Page 43]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/