\chapter{\label{design}Design}
%** Design.tex: How was the problem attacked, what was the design
%               the architecture
In this chapter we describe the architecture of our solution and our
design choices.

% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{design:configuration}IPv6 and IPv4 configuration}
The following sections refer to host and network configurations. In
this section we describe the IPv6 and IPv4 configurations as a basis
for the discussion.

All IPv6 addresses are from the documentation block
\textit{2001:DB8::/32}~\cite{rfc3849}. In particular the following sub
networks and IPv6 addresses are used:
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
\textbf{Address} & \textbf{Description} \\
\hline
2001:db8:42::/64 & IPv6 host network \\
\hline
2001:db8:23::/96 & IPv6 mapping to the IPv4 Internet \\
\hline
2001:db8:42::42 & IPv6 host address \\
\hline
2001:db8:42::77 & IPv6 router address \\
\hline
2001:db8:42::a00:2a & In-network IPv6 address mapped to 10.0.0.42 (p4)\\
\hline
2001:db8:23::a00:2a & IPv6 address mapped to 10.0.0.42 (tayga) \\
\hline
2001:db8:23::2a & IPv6 address mapped to 10.0.0.42 (jool)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{IPv6 address and network overview}
\label{tab:ipv6address}
\end{center}
\end{table}

We use private IPv4 addresses as specified by RFC1918~\cite{rfc1918}
from the 10.0.0.0/8 range as follows:

\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
\textbf{Address} & \textbf{Description} \\
\hline
10.0.0.0/24 & IPv4 host network \\
\hline
10.0.1.0/24 & IPv4 network mapping to IPv6\\
\hline
10.0.0.77 & IPv4 router address\\
\hline
10.0.0.66 & In-network IPv4 address mapped to 2001:db8:42::42 (p4)\\
\hline
10.0.1.42 & IPv4 address mapped to 2001:db8:42::42 (tayga)\\
\hline
10.0.1.66 & IPv4 address mapped to 2001:db8:42::42 (jool)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{IPv4 address and network overview}
\label{tab:ipv4address}
\end{center}
\end{table}
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{design:tests}NAT64 Verification}
We use socat~\cite{rieger:_multip} to verify basic operation of the
NAT64 gateway and iperf~\cite{dugan:_tcp_udp_sctp} to test stability
of the implementation and measure bandwidth.
In particular we use
the commands listed in table \ref{tab:nat64verification}. The socat
commands allow interactive testing on TCP and UDP connections, while
the iperf commands fully utilise the available bandwidth with test
data.
The socat and iperf commands are used to verify all three NAT64
implementations (p4, tayga, jool).
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c |}
\hline
\textbf{Command} & \textbf{Example} & \textbf{Description} \\
\hline
\texttt{socat - TCP6:HOST:PORT} & socat -
TCP6:[2001:db8:42::a00:2a]:2345 & Connect via IPv6/TCP\\
& & to IPv4 host\\
%\hline
\texttt{socat - UDP6:HOST:PORT} & socat -
UDP6:[2001:db8:42::a00:2a]:2345 & Connect via IPv6/UDP \\ & & to IPv4 host\\
%\hline
\texttt{socat - TCP:HOST:PORT} & socat -
TCP:10.0.1.42:2345 & Connect via IPv4/TCP \\ & & to IPv6 host \\
%\hline
\texttt{socat - UDP:HOST:PORT} & socat -
UDP:10.0.1.42:2345 & Connect via IPv4/UDP \\ & & to IPv6 host \\
\hline
\texttt{socat - UDP6-LISTEN:PORT} & socat -
UDP6-LISTEN:2345 & Listen on IPv6/UDP \\
%\hline
\texttt{socat - TCP6-LISTEN:PORT} & socat -
TCP6-LISTEN:2345 & Listen on IPv6/TCP \\
%\hline
\texttt{socat - UDP-LISTEN:PORT} & socat -
UDP-LISTEN:2345 & Listen on IPv4/UDP \\
%\hline
\texttt{socat - TCP-LISTEN:PORT} & socat -
TCP-LISTEN:2345 & Listen on IPv4/TCP \\
\hline
\texttt{iperf3 -PROTO -p PORT} & iperf3 -4 -p 2345 & IPv4 iperf server\\
\texttt{-B IP -s} &  -B 10.0.0.42 -s &\\
& iperf3 -6 -p 2345  & IPv6 iperf server\\
& -B 2001:db8:42::42 -s & \\
\hline
\texttt{iperf3 -PROTO -p PORT } & iperf3 -6 -p 2345& Connect to iperf server\\
\texttt{-O IGNORETIME -t RUNTIME} & -O 10 -t 190 &
Run for 190 seconds, \\
& & skip first 10 seconds\\
\texttt{-P PARALLEL -c IP} & -P20 -c 2001:db8:23::2a &
with 20 sessions\\
& & connecting to\\
& & 2001:db8:23::2a\\
\texttt{iperf3 -PROTO -p PORT} & & Same as above,\\
\texttt{-O IGNORETIME -t RUNTIME} & & but connect via UDP\\
\texttt{-P PARALLEL -c IP} & & \\
\texttt{-u -b0} & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{NAT64 verification commands}
\label{tab:nat64verification}
\end{center}
\end{table}
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{design:nat64}NAT64 with P4}
\begin{figure}[h]
  \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{switchdesign}
  \centering
  \caption{P4 Switch Architecture}
  \label{fig:switchdesign}
\end{figure}
In section \ref{background:transition} we discussed different
translation mechanisms for IPv6 and IPv4. In this thesis we focus on
the translation mechansims stateless and stateful NAT64. While higher
layer protocol dependent translations are more flexible, this topic
has already been addressed in
\cite{nico18:_implem_layer_ipv4_ipv6_rever_proxy} and the focus in
this thesis is on the practicability of high speed NAT64 with P4.
The high level design can be seen in figure \ref{fig:switchdesign}: a
P4 capable switch is running our code to provide NAT64
functionality. A P4 switch cannot manage its tables on it own and
needs support for this from a controller. The controller also has the
role to handle unknown packets and can modify the runtime
configuration of the switch. This is especially useful in the case of
stateful NAT64.
If only static table entries
are required, they can usually be added at the start of a P4 switch
and the controller can also be omitted. However stateful
NAT64 requires the use of a controller to create session entries in the
switch tables.
The P4 switch can use any protocol to communicate with the controller, as
the connection to the controller is implemented as a separate ethernet
port.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{v6-v4-standard}
  \centering
  \caption{Standard NAT64 translation}
  \label{fig:v6v4standard}
\end{figure}

Software NAT64 solutions typically require routing to be applied to
transport the packet to the NAT64 translator as shown in figure
\ref{fig:v6v4standard}.

Our design differs here: while routing could be used like described
above, NAT64 with P4 does not require any routing to be setup. Figure
\ref{fig:v6v4mixed} shows the network design that we realise using
P4. This design has multiple advantages: first it reduces the number
of devices to pass and thus directly reduces the RTT, secondly it
allows translation of IP addresses within the same logic network
segment.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{v6-v4-mixed}
  \centering
  \caption{In-network NAT64 translation}
  \label{fig:v6v4mixed}
\end{figure}

% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{design:statelessnat64}Stateless NAT64}
As seen in section \ref{background:transition:stateless}, stateless
NAT64 can be implemented using various factors. Our design for the
stateless depends on the capabilities of the environment and is
summarised in table \ref{tab:statelessnat64factors}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{| c | c |}
\hline
\textbf{Implementation} & \textbf{NAT64 match}\\
\hline
P4/BMV2 & LPM (both directions)\\
& and individual entries (both directions)\\
\hline
P4/NetPFGA & Individual entries\\
\hline
Tayga & LPM (IPv6 to IPv4) and individual entries (IPv4 to IPv6)\\
\hline
Jool & LPM (both directions)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\caption{NAT64 match factors}
\label{tab:statelessnat64factors}
\end{center}
\end{table}
When using LPM for translating from IPv6 to IPv4, a /96 IPv6 network
is configured for covering the whole IPv4 Internet and the individual
IPv4 address is appended to the prefix (compare section
\ref{design:configuration}). We also use LPM to match on an IPv4 sub
network that translates to an IPv6 sub network. Individual
entries are configured differently depending on the implementation:
Limitations in the P4/NetFPGA environment require to use table
entries. Jool supports individual entries as a special case of LPM,
with a network mask matching only one IP address. Tayga
support LPM for translation from IPv6 to IPv4, but requires invidiual
entries for translating from IPv4 to IPv6. Our P4/BMV2 offers the
highest degree of flexibility, as it provides support for invidual
entries based on table entries and LPM table entries.
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{design:statefulnat64}Stateful NAT64}
Similar to stateless NAT64, the design of stateful NAT64 depends on
the features of the invidual implementation. As pointed out in section
\ref{background:transition:statefulnat64}, stateful NAT64 is very
similar to stateless NAT64, with the main difference being an
additional stateful table that helps to create 1:n mappings.
We use different approaches within the implementations
to solve this problem:
\begin{itemize}
\item For P4/BMV2 and P4/NetPFGA a python controller handles packets
  that don't have a table entry, sets the table entry in the P4 switch
  and inserts the original packet afterwards back into the switch.
\item With tayga we rely on the Linux kernel NAT44 capabilities
\item Jool implements its own stateful mechanism based on a port
  ranges
\end{itemize}
All methods though operate in a very similar fashion: A ``controller''
inspects the IPv6 packet and depending on the source address,
destination address, protocol (TCP, UDP,
ICMP, ICMP6, etc.) and the protocol ID (source / destination TCP/UDP
port, ICMP identifier) it selects an outgoing IPv4 address, and source
port or ICMP identifier.
In case of Jool and Tayga this decision is based on a session table
inside the Linux kernel, in case of P4 this decision is based on a
session table inside the python controller. While the Jool and Tayga
both support cleaning up old session entries,
our P4 based solution does not support this feature at the moment.
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{design:bmv2}P4/BMV2}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{verbatim}
/* checksumming for icmp6_na_ns_option */
update_checksum_with_payload(meta.chk_icmp6_na_ns == 1,
	{
        hdr.ipv6.src_addr,         /* 128 */
        hdr.ipv6.dst_addr,         /* 128 */
        meta.cast_length,          /* 32 */
        24w0,                      /* 24 0's */
        PROTO_ICMP6,               /* 8 */
        hdr.icmp6.type,            /* 8 */
        hdr.icmp6.code,            /* 8 */

        hdr.icmp6_na_ns.router,
        hdr.icmp6_na_ns.solicitated,
        hdr.icmp6_na_ns.override,
        hdr.icmp6_na_ns.reserved,
        hdr.icmp6_na_ns.target_addr,

        hdr.icmp6_option_link_layer_addr.type,
        hdr.icmp6_option_link_layer_addr.ll_length,
        hdr.icmp6_option_link_layer_addr.mac_addr
    },
    hdr.icmp6.checksum,
    HashAlgorithm.csum16
);
\end{verbatim}
  \centering
  \caption{P4/BMV2 checksumming}
  \label{fig:bmv2checksum}
\end{figure}
The software emulated switch that is implemented using
Open vSwitch~\cite{openvswitch} and the
behavioral model~\cite{_implem_your_switc_target_with_bmv2}
offers the fastest and easiest way of P4 development. All NAT64
features are tested first on P4/BMV2 and in a second step ported to
P4/NetFPGA and modified, where necessary.
The development follows closely the general design shown in section
\ref{design:nat64}.
As outlined in section \ref{background:checksums}, checksums inside
higher level protocols need to be adjusted after translation.
Within the software emulation checksums can be
computed with two different methods:
\begin{itemize}
\item Recalculating the checksum by inspecting headers and payload
\item Calculating the difference between the translated headers
\end{itemize}
The BMV2 model is sophisticated and provides direct support
for calculating the checksum over the payload. This allows the BMV2
model to operate as a full featured host, including advanced features
like responding to ICMP6 Neighbor discovery requests~\cite{rfc4861}
that include payload checksums. Sample code that calculates the
required checksum for answering NDP queries is shown in figure
\ref{fig:bmv2checksum}. The code shows how the field
\texttt{hdr.icmp6.checksum} is updated with the \texttt{csum16} method
depending on the IPv6 and ICMP6 headers as well as the payload. The
second option of using the differences is described in section
\ref{design:netpfga}.
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{\label{design:netpfga}P4/NetFPGA}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{verbatim}
action v4sum() {
    bit<16> tmp = 0;

    tmp = tmp + (bit<16>) hdr.ipv4.src_addr[15:0];              // 16 bit
    tmp = tmp + (bit<16>) hdr.ipv4.src_addr[31:16];             // 16 bit
    tmp = tmp + (bit<16>) hdr.ipv4.dst_addr[15:0];              // 16 bit
    tmp = tmp + (bit<16>) hdr.ipv4.dst_addr[31:16];             // 16 bit

    tmp = tmp + (bit<16>) hdr.ipv4.totalLen -20;                // 16 bit
    tmp = tmp + (bit<16>) hdr.ipv4.protocol;                    // 8 bit

    meta.v4sum = ~tmp;
}

/* analogue code for v6sum skipped */

action delta_tcp_from_v6_to_v4()
{
    v6sum();
    v4sum();

    bit<17> tmp = (bit<17>) hdr.tcp.checksum + (bit<17>) meta.v4sum;
    if (tmp[16:16] == 1) {
        tmp = tmp + 1;
        tmp[16:16] = 0;
    }
    tmp = tmp + (bit<17>) (0xffff - meta.v6sum);
    if (tmp[16:16] == 1) {
        tmp = tmp + 1;
        tmp[16:16] = 0;
    }

    hdr.tcp.checksum = (bit<16>) tmp;
}
\end{verbatim}
  \centering
  \caption{Calculating checksum based on header differences}
  \label{fig:checksumbydiff}
\end{figure}
While the P4-NetFPGA project~\cite{netfpga:_p4_netpf_public_github}
allows compiling P4 to the NetPFGA, the design slightly varies due to
limitations in the available toolchain.
In particular, the NetFPGA P4 compiler does not support reading
the payload.\footnote{This feature could be implemented in theory, but
isn't available at the moment, see~\cite{schottelius:_exter_p4_netpf}.}
For this reason it also does not support
creating the checksum based on the payload.
To support checksum modifications in NAT64 on the NetFPGA, the
checksum is calculated  using differences between
the IPv6 and IPv4 headers.

As the checksum calculation only depends on the 1-complement sums of
headers and the payload (compare section \ref{background:checksums})
and only headers are modified during NAT64 translations, the higher
level protocol checksums can be corrected based on the sum of
differences of both headers. Thus our P4/NetFPGA implementation first
calculates the sum of the relevant IPv4 headers (\texttt{v4sum()}),
the sum of the relevant IPv6 headers (\texttt{v6sum()})
and then calculates the difference including a
possible carry bit and adjusts the higher level protocol by this
difference (\texttt{delta\_tcp\_from\_v6\_to\_v4()}).
Figure \ref{fig:checksumbydiff} shows an
excerpt of the code used for adjust the checksum when translating TCP
from IPv6 to IPv4.
It is notable that
not the full headers are used, but only a ``pseudo header'' (compare figures
\ref{fig:ipv6pseudoheader} and \ref{fig:ipv4pseudoheader}).
% ok
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
