idnits 2.17.1 draft-despres-softwire-stateless-analysis-tool-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 147: '... | | CEs MUST be able to support ...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 16, 2012) is 4264 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force R. Despres 3 Internet-Draft RD-IPtech 4 Intended status: Informational July 16, 2012 5 Expires: January 17, 2013 7 Feature Analysis Tool for stateless IPv4/IPv6 (MAP-T, MAP-E, 4rd) 8 draft-despres-softwire-stateless-analysis-tool-02 10 Abstract 12 This document proposes a discussion tool for the Softwire meeting at 13 IETF 84 in Vancouver. 15 Significant differentiating features between the MAP approach 16 (proposed standards MAP-T and MAP-E) and the unified approach 17 (proposed standard 4rd) are presented in tabular format. 19 Its purpose is to facilitate decision making, and is therefore 20 temporary. 22 Status of this Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2013. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Feature-Comparison Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 1. Introduction 63 Stateless solutions that are proposed for residual IPv4 service 64 across IPv6-only networks will be discussed at IETF 84 in Vancouver, 65 July 27 to August 3 2012. This document proposes a tool to 66 facilitate common understanding during these discussions, and thus 67 facilitate decision making on what to standardize and why. 69 It contains tables in which, for each of the major proposed 70 specifications, MAP-T, MAP-E and 4rd, the most significant 71 differentiating features are listed: 73 o Table 1 deals with features that depend on whether IPv4 packets 74 are twice translated (MAP-T), tunneled with packet encapsulation 75 (MAP-E), or tunneled with reversible IPv4/IPv6 header translation 76 (4rd). 78 o Table 2 deals with features that depend on how IPv6 addresses are 79 derived from IPv4 addresses, plus ports if applicable. Table 3 80 deals with miscellaneous features. 82 Documents used are: 84 o [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] for MAP-T and MAP-E 86 o [I-D.ietf-softwire-4rd] for 4rd 88 Issues identified on the tracker of trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/ 89 trac/report/1 are referenced by their ticket numbers. 91 2. Feature-Comparison Tables 93 +----+------------------------------+-------+-------+-----+---------+ 94 | | Features that depend on | MAP-T | MAP-E | 4rd | Issue # | 95 | | header formats | | | | in | 96 | | | | | | tracker | 97 +----+------------------------------+-------+-------+-----+---------+ 98 | H1 | IPv6-only ACLs applicable to | Y | N | Y | | 99 | | IPv4 packets | | | | | 100 | H2 | Support of DF=1 fragmented | N | Y | Y | #8 | 101 | | packets (required by | | | | | 102 | | RFC4821) | | | | | 103 | H3 | Max performance where | Y | N | Y | #9 | 104 | | TCP/IPv6 is faster than | | | | | 105 | | TCP/IPv4/IPv6 | | | | | 106 | H4 | For shared-address CEs, | N | Y | Y | | 107 | | support of DCCP, UDP lite, | | | | | 108 | | and any future protocols | | | | | 109 | | using port fields and | | | | | 110 | | checksum algorithm of TCP | | | | | 111 | H5 | IPv6 congestion | Y | N | Y | | 112 | | notifications of RFC 3168 | | | | | 113 | | forwarded in IPv4 | | | | | 114 | H6 | Null-checksum UDP datagrams | N | Y | Y | #6 | 115 | | cannot be sent to wrong | | | | | 116 | | destinations with valid | | | | | 117 | | checksums | | | | | 118 +----+------------------------------+-------+-------+-----+---------+ 120 Table 1 122 +----+-------------------------------------+--------+-----+---------+ 123 | | Features that depend on IPv6 | MAP-T | 4rd | Issue # | 124 | | address formats | and | | in | 125 | | | MAP-E | | tracker | 126 +----+-------------------------------------+--------+-----+---------+ 127 | A1 | Applicability to sites that use | N | Y | #5 | 128 | | subnet ID = 0 | | | | 129 | A2 | Applicability to CEs that are | N | Y | | 130 | | behind third-party CPEs | | | | 131 | A3 | IPv6 addresses of IPv4 endpoints | N | Y | | 132 | | are recognizable without knowledge | | | | 133 | | of Domain mapping rules (for ACLs | | | | 134 | | etc.) | | | | 135 +----+-------------------------------------+--------+-----+---------+ 136 Table 2 138 +----+----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---------+ 139 | | Miscellaneous | MAP | MAP | 4rd | Issue # | 140 | | | -T | -E | | in | 141 | | | | | | tracker | 142 +----+----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---------+ 143 | M1 | IPv6 Packet reassembly never | Y | N | Y | #3 | 144 | | needed in BRs | | | | | 145 | M3 | BR-CE compatibility guaranteed | N | N | Y | | 146 | | by the number of mapping rules | | | | | 147 | | CEs MUST be able to support | | | | | 148 | M4 | IP header length | 40 | 60 | 40 | | 149 | | | or | or | or | | 150 | | | 48 | 68 | 48 | | 151 +----+----------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+---------+ 153 Table 3 155 3. Informative References 157 [I-D.ietf-softwire-4rd] 158 Despres, R., Penno, R., Lee, Y., Chen, G., S. Jiang, and 159 M. Chen "IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - a unified 160 Stateless Solution (4rd)", draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-03 161 (work in progress), July 2012. 163 [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] 164 Troan, O., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Zhai, Y., Matsushima, 165 S., and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port (MAP)", 166 draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 (work in progress), June 2012. 168 Author's Address 170 Remi Despres 171 RD-IPtech 172 3 rue du President Wilson 173 Levallois, 174 France 176 Email: despres.remi@laposte.net