1 / 9

IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence Framework Prefixing/Encap/Translation (PET)

IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence Framework Prefixing/Encap/Translation (PET). draft-cui-softwire-pet-02 Yong Cui, Mingwei Xu, Jianping Wu, Xing Li, Chris Metz, etc. CERNET, CISCO Jul. 2010. Motivation: Diminish the disadvantage of translation. Host A (IPv4). Do we need translation? YES

macey-saunders
Télécharger la présentation

IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence Framework Prefixing/Encap/Translation (PET)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence Framework Prefixing/Encap/Translation (PET) draft-cui-softwire-pet-02 Yong Cui, Mingwei Xu, Jianping Wu, Xing Li, Chris Metz, etc. CERNET, CISCO Jul. 2010

  2. Motivation: Diminish the disadvantage of translation Host A (IPv4) • Do we need translation? YES • We have spent years to reduce the complexity of translation • SIIT, NAT-PT, … • IVI, NAT64, DNS64, … • Why not look at finding the right place to diminish the disadvantage of translation? • Even using an additional tunnel IPv4 Internet Xlate??? AFBR1 Dual-stackbackbone Xlate??? AFBR2 IPv6 Edgenetwork Host B (IPv6)

  3. Processing Layer State Maintenance IPv4/IPv6 Routing Application Scenario Motivation Tunneling Translation • It is necessary to • decide which method should be used in given scenarios • how they collaborate for solving transition problems while utilizing both advantages? IP layer (Hardware) Stateless (Scalable) Separated routing (Scalable) E-IP over I-IP ALG (Software) Stateful (No Scalable) Routing merge (No Scalable) E-IP  I-IP

  4. IPv6 Backbone IPv4 Internet IPv6 Edge AFBR Xlate AFBR SW AFBR SW Softwire Example to combine them • In the beginning of small IPv6 network • Next step on large IPv6 backbone • Incremental deployment for 100 IPv6 edge networks • Optionally xlate on either side • How can network decide where to use tunneling or xlate IPv6 Backbone IPv4 Internet IPv6 Edge AFBR Xlate PE

  5. PET framework • P: prefixing • all transition operations of control plane involved with subnet prefix • For tunneling: prefix announcement, tunnel endpoint discovery/selection, and so on • For translation: prefix configuration or address mapping policy, and so on • E: encapsulation • all tunneling operations of data plane • Encapsulation/decapsulation/MTU processing • T: translation • all translation operations of data plane • address mapping/protocol translation/MTU processing.

  6. PET framework ☆ ☆ ☆ E-IP Backbone • P: Prefixing • E: Encapsulation • T: Translation • IPv4 access • IPv6 access • Dual-stack access E-IP network PET PET E-IP network PET PET I-IP Backbone (Dual-stack) Host B Host C PET PET PET I-IP network Host A Edge Network Edge Network

  7. Forwarding Xlate IPv6 Backbone IPv4 664 Remote Xlat Xlate+SW Decap IPv6 Edge net IPv4 664 Local-Xlat+SW IPv4 Encap. IPv6 Decap+Xlate 466 SW+Remote Xlat Function of PET PET Signaling IPv6 backbone source PET Dest PET IPv6 Encap. 464 SW IPv4 IPv4 Decap.

  8. PET signaling • Functionality • Negotiate between PET boxes • Who should do translation / tunneling • For what kind of packets / prefix • Example • Negotiate the translation preference (TP) • Parameters: Bandwidth, pps, load • Stateless/Stateful

  9. Future work • PET signaling will be defined by BGP extension based on Softwire • Leveraging other existing tunneling and translation technologies • Ask for accepting as WG document

More Related