M. Boucadair, J. Touch, P. Levis and R. Penno

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Stateless IPv4-IPv6 Interconnection for DS-lite and A+P Flexible IPv6 Migration Scenarios in the Context of IPv4 Address Shortage I-D.boucadair-behave-ipv6-portrange.
Advertisements

Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses draft-csf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-00 Q. Sun, Y. Cui, I. Farrer, Y. Lee, Q. Sun, M. Boucadair IETF 89,
Deployment Considerations for Dual-stack Lite IETF 80 Prague Yiu Lee, Roberta Magione, Carl Williams, Christian Jacquenet Mohamed Boucadair.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 W. Schulte Chapter 5: Network Address Translation for IPv4  Connecting.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Lecture15: Network Address Translation for IPv4 Connecting Networks.
1 3gpp_trans / 09/02 / IPv6 Transition Solutions for 3GPP Networks draft-wiljakka-3gpp-ipv6-transition-01.txt Juha Wiljakka, Nokia.
NAT64 Operational Experiences draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-03 IETF 84- Vancouver, Aug 2012 Gang Chen China Mobile Zhen Cao China Mobile Cameron Byrne.
Deployment Considerations for Dual-stack Lite draft-lee-softwire-dslite-deployment-00 Yiu Lee, Roberta Magione, Carl Williams, Christian Jacquenet Mohamed.
Mitigating Teredo Routing Loop Attacks (draft-gont-6man-teredo-loops-00 ) Fernando Gont on behalf of UK CPNI IETF 79 November 7-12, Beijing, China.
IETF 80 th 1 Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal the Origin IP Address in Shared Address Deployments draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-01.
IETF 85 th 1 Host Identification: Scenarios draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-01 IETF 85-Atlanta, November 2012 M. Boucadair, S. Durel,
1Group 07 IPv6 2 1.ET/06/ ET/06/ ET/06/ EE/06/ EE/06/ EE/06/6473 Group 07 IPv6.
Dean Cheng Jouni Korhonen Mehamed Boucadair
Draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis – IETF84 Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02.
Draft-ietf-v6ops-scanning-implications-00 IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning Tim Chown University of Southampton (UK) IETF 66,
Draft-thomson-geopriv-res-gw-lis-discovery Ray Bellis Nominet UK IETF79.
BEHAVE BOF (Behavior Engineering for Hindrance AVoidancE) Cullen Jennings Jiri Kuthan.
1 November 2006 in Dagstuhl, Germany
Softwire IETF 78. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and.
IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for IPv6 Transition draft-weil-opsawg-provider-address-space-00 IETF 78 July
IPv6/IPv4 XLATE Trial Service for sharing IPv4 address Japan Internet Exchange Co., Ltd. Masataka MAWATARI.
6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-02 Victor Kuarsingh, Rogers Communications Inc.
Guidance for Running Multiple IPv6 Prefixes (draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes-02) Bing Liu, Sheng Jiang (Speaker), Yang Bo IETF91
IPv6 Site-Local Discussion Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman IETF 56 San Francisco March 2003.
CONEX BoF. Welcome to CONEX! Chairs: –Leslie Daigle –Philip Eardley Scribe Note well.
Guidance of Using Unique Local Addresses draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-05 draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-05 Bing Liu(speaker), Sheng Jiang, Cameron.
1 Requirements for Internet Routers (Gateways) and Hosts Relates to Lab 3. (Supplement) Covers the compliance requirements of Internet routers and hosts.
Analysis and recommendation for the ULA usage draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-00 draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-00 Bing Liu(speaker), Sheng Jiang.
Chapter 27 IPv6 Protocol.
1 ipv6-node-02.PPT/ 18 November 2002 / John Loughney IETF 55 IPv6 Working Group IPv6 Node Requirements draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-02.txt John Loughney.
IETF 81 th Multicast Extensions to DS-Lite Technique in Broadband Deployments draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 Wang, Q., Qin, J., Boucadair, M.,
1 Internet Area Open Meeting 72th IETF, Dublin, Ireland Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.
Dean Cheng 81 st IETF Quebec City RADIUS Extensions for CGN Configurations draft-cheng-behave-cgn-cfg-radius-ext
1 ipv6-node-02.PPT/ 18 November 2002 / John Loughney IETF 55 IPv6 Working Group IPv6 Node Requirements draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-02.txt John Loughney.
1 3gpp_trans/ / IPv6 Transition Solutions for 3GPP Networks draft-wiljakka-3gpp-ipv6-transition-00.txt Juha Wiljakka,
1/13 draft-carpenter-nvo3-addressing-00 Brian Carpenter Sheng Jiang IETF 84 Jul/Aug 2012 Layer 3 Addressing Considerations for Network Virtualization Overlays.
GIST NAT traversal and Legacy NAT traversal for GIST AND
IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: Title: IETF Liaison Report Date Submitted: May 14, 2009 Presented at IEEE session.
YANG Data Model for IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire draft-sun-softwire-yang November 2014 Q. Sun, H. Wang, Y. Cui, I. Farrer (presenter), M. Boucadair.
Dhc WG 3/2/2004, IETF 59, Seoul. 3/2/2004dhc WG - IETF 59, Seoul2 Agenda Administrivia, Agenda bashing Ralph Droms 05 minutes DHCP Option for Proxy Server.
Deploying Dual-Stack Lite in IPv6 Network draft-boucadair-dslite-interco-v4v6-04 Mohamed Boucadair
Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to DS-Lite Architecture draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-09 Y. Cui, Q. Sun, M. Boucadair, T. Tsou, Y. Lee and.
Transmission of IP Packets over IEEE 802
Internet Protocol Version 6 Specifications
Solution Model of Source Address Tracing for CGN
IP-NNI Joint Task Force Status Update
IETF 55 IPv6 Working Group IPv6 Node Requirements
IP Adressing in IPv4 By Kenneth Lundby.
NAT State Synchronization using SCSP draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-01
Instructor Materials Chapter 9: NAT for IPv4
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
IETF80, Prague Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME) WG
Routing and Switching Essentials v6.0
IEEE 22nd Annual Computer Communications Workshop
IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS OAM
CONEX BoF.
IP-NNI Joint Task Force Status Update
November 7-12, Beijing,China.
Instructor Materials Chapter 9: NAT for IPv4
NAT (Network Address Translation)‏
Chapter 20. Network Layer: IP
Chapter 11: Network Address Translation for IPv4
IEEE IETF Liaison Report
PW Control Word Stitching
How OAM Identified in Overlay Protocols draft-mirsky-rtgwg-oam-identify Greg Mirsky IETF-104 March 2019, Prague.
Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID
Dayong GUO Sheng JIANG (Speaker) Remi Despres
SAVI Requirements and Solutions for IPv4/IPv6 Transition
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
IPv6 Current version of the Internet Protocol is Version 4 (v4)
Presentation transcript:

M. Boucadair, J. Touch, P. Levis and R. Penno Analysis of Candidate Solutions to Reveal the Origin IP Address in Shared Address Deployments draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04 INTAREA WG IETF 82-Taipei, November 2011 M. Boucadair, J. Touch, P. Levis and R. Penno

Scope and Objectives Some IP servers need source IP address of incoming traffic for specific treatment In address sharing environments (RFC 6269) the sole IPv4 address for unambiguous host identification is not sufficient Issue may also arise in IPv6 environments Draft analyzes various candidate solutions to address this requirement IP option, TCP (HOST_ID) option, ID field of IP header, application layer extension Goal is to document recommendations a la RFC 6302

What Next? Adopt as a WG item? One of the items covered by the WG charter Covers issues raised by both translation (behave) and tunneling (softwire) contexts Proposed work can be seen as a follow-up to RFCs 6269 and 6302 as it discusses “address space issues and basic IP layer functionality” Complete the document with clear recommendations Recommend a solution? Analysis of solution landscape needs to include performance and privacy impacts, etc. “IETF has documented the issues and has analyzed candidate solutions but IETF believes CGN should remain the exception and never become a rule for the sake of IPv6 deployment”? Proprietary solutions may then emerge at the risk of jeopardizing interoperability “IPv6 will solve this”? Does not mitigate service disruption to be experienced by Internet users when address sharing designs are deployed at large scale during transition period Issues remain valid for NAT64 anyway