[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
MAP-E
- Subject: MAP-E
- From: mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:00:13 +0900
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <CAPkb-7A2Ye=mUkYwZuVQkyDN3hFE=rTx6Ap8pb5u_SDwe83nYQ@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAPkb-7BD0kbJqd5+uSrS14iOVTE-d=WkiKpAKa+3RRAAvky40Q@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAK6zc0=W+jOweLsC5vS8Kcuz58HuTkC5DWrJjJD16y5kX3GFQg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]>
Lee Howard wrote:
> MAP-T, MAP-E. IPv6-only between CE and Border Relay (BR). CPE is
> provisioned with an IPv4 address and a range of ports. It does basic
> NAT44, but only uses the reserved ports. Then it translates to IPv6
> (MAP-T) or encapsulates in IPv6 (MAP-E) and forwards to the configured
> Border Relay (BR), which changes it to IPv4. Pro: Stateless, very
> efficient. Con: Very little CPE support in home routers.
So, all we need is NAT44 CPE, which only uses a reserved block of ports,
which is (semi) statically configured by ISP operated gateway.
Pro: Stateless, very efficient, no IPv6 necessary Con: No current
CPE support.
As for protocol, assuming port mapping on UPnP gateway is statically
configured by ISPs not changable from CPE side, GetListOfPortMappings()
of UPnP should be useful for CPEs to know range of ports to be used
by them.
Masataka Ohta
- Follow-Ups:
- MAP-E
- From: lists.nanog at monmotha.net (Brandon Martin)
- MAP-E
- From: lee.howard at retevia.net (Lee Howard)
- References:
- MAP-E
- From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl)
- MAP-E
- From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
- MAP-E
- From: baldur.norddahl at gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl)
- MAP-E
- From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
- MAP-E
- From: jayhanke at gmail.com (Jay Hanke)
- MAP-E
- From: lee.howard at retevia.net (Lee Howard)