\chapter{\label{background}Background} In this chapter we describe the key technologies involved. \section{\label{background:P4}P4} P4 is a programming language designed to program inside network equipment. It's main features are protocol and target independence. The \textit{protocol independence} refers to the separation of concerns in terms of language and protocols: P4 generally speaking operates on bits that are parsed and then accessible in the (self) defined structures, also called headers. The general flow can be seen in figure \ref{fig:p4fromnsg}: a parser parses the incoming packet and prepares it for processing in the switching logic. Afterwards the packets is output and deparsing of the parsed data might follow. In the context of NAT64 this is a very important feature: while the parser will read and parse in the ingress pipeline one protocol (f.i. IPv6), the deparser will output a different protocol (f.i. IPv4). \begin{figure}[h] \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{p4-from-nsg} \centering \caption{P4 protocol independence, \cite{vanbever:_progr_networ_data_planes}} \label{fig:p4fromnsg} \end{figure} The \textit{target independence} is the second very powerful feature of P4: it allows code to be compiled to different targets. While in theory the P4 code should be completely target independent, in reality there are some modifications needed on a per-target basis and each target faces different restrictions. The challenges arising from this are discussed in section \ref{conclusion:P4}. As opposed to general purpose programming languages, P4 lacks some features, most notably loops. However within its constraints, P4 can guarantee operation at line speed, which general purpose programming languages cannot guarantee and also fail to achieve in reality (see section \ref{results:softwarenat64} for details). % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \section{\label{background:ip}IPv6, IPv4 and Ethernet} The first IPv6 RFC was published in 1998\cite{rfc2460}. Both IPv4 and IPv4 operate on layer 3 of the OSI model. In this thesis we only consider transmission via Ethernet, which operates at layer 2. Inside the Ethernet frame a field named ``type'' specifies the higher level protocol identifier (0x0800 for IPv4 \cite{rfc894} and 0x86DD for IPv6 \cite{rfc2464}. This is important, because Ethernet can only carry either of the two protocols. The figures \ref{fig:ipv4header} and \ref{fig:ipv6header} show the packet headers of IPv4 and IPv6. The most notable differences between the two protocols for this thesis are: \begin{itemize} \item Different address lengths (32 vs 128 bit) \item Lack of checksum in IPv6 \item Format of Pseudo headers (see section \ref{background:checksums}) \end{itemize} \begin{figure}[h] \begin{verbatim} +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Source Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Destination Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \end{verbatim} \centering \caption{IPv6 Header, \cite{rfc2460}} \label{fig:ipv6header} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h] \begin{verbatim} 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Options | Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \end{verbatim} \caption{IPv4 Header, \cite{rfc791}} \label{fig:ipv4header} \end{figure} % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \section{\label{background:arpndp}ARP and NDP, ICMP and ICMP6} While IPv6 and IPv4 are primarily used as a ``shell'' to support addressing for protocols that have no or limited addressing support (like TCP or UDP), protocols like ARP \cite{rfc826} and NDP \cite{rfc4861} provide support for resolving IPv6 and IPv4 addresses to hardware (MAC) addresses. While both ARP and NDP are only used prior to establishing a connection on and their results are cached, their availability is crucial for operating a switch. Figure \ref{fig:arpndp} illustrates a typical address resolution process. \begin{figure}[h] \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{arp-ndp} \centering \caption{ARP and NDP} \label{fig:arpndp} \end{figure} The major difference between ARP and NDP in relation to P4 are \begin{itemize} \item ARP is a separate protocol on the same layer as IPv6 and IPv4, \item NDP operates below ICMP6 which operates below IPv6, \item NDP contains checksums over payload, \item and NDP in ICMP6 contains optional, non referenced option fields (specifically: ICMP6 link layer address option). \end{itemize} ARP is required to be a separate protocol, because IPv4 hosts don't know how to communicate with each other yet, because they don't have a way to communicate to the target IPv4 address (``The chicken and the egg problem''). NDP on the other hand already works within IPv6, as every IPv6 host is required to have a self-assigned link local IPv6 address from the range \texttt{fe80::/10} (compare RFC4291\cite{rfc4291}). NDP also does not require broadcast communication, because hosts automatically join multicast groups that embed parts of their IPv6 addresses (\cite{rfc2710}, \cite{wikipedia:_solic}). This way the collision domain is significantly reduced in IPv6, compared to IPv4. As seen later in this document (compare \ref{results:netpfga:checksum}), the requirement to generate checksums over payload poses difficult problems for some hardware targets. Even more difficult is the use of options within ICMP6. Figure shows a typical layout of a neighbor advertisement messages. \begin{figure}[h] \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{icmp6ndp} \centering \caption{ICMP6 option fields} \label{fig:icmp6ndp} \end{figure} The problem arises from the layout of the options, as seen in the following quote: \begin{quote} Neighbor Discovery messages include zero or more options, some of which may appear multiple times in the same message. Options should be padded when necessary to ensure that they end on their natural 64-bit boundaries.\footnote{From RFC4861.} \end{quote} ICMP6 and ICMP are primarily used to signal errors in communication. Specifically signalling that a packet is too big to pass a certain link and needs fragmentation is a common functionality of both protocols. For a host (or switch) to be able to emit ICMP6 and ICMP messages, the host requires a valid IPv6 / IPv4 address. Without ICMP6 / ICMP support path mtu discovery (\cite{rfc1191}, \cite{rfc8201}) does not work and the sender needs to determine different ways of finding out the maximum MTU on the path. % ok -- need to separate backgroun and results % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \section{\label{background:transition}IPv6 Translation Mechanisms} While in this thesis the focus was in NAT64 as a translation mechanism, there are a variety of different approaches, some of which we would like to portray here. % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \subsection{\label{background:transition:staticnat64}Static NAT64} Static NAT64 describes static mappings between IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. This can be based on longest prefix matchings (LPM), ranges, bitmasks or individual entries. NAT64 translations as described in this thesis modify multiple layers in the translation process: \begin{itemize} \item Ethernet (changing the type field) \item IPv4 / IPv6 (changing the protocol, changing the fields) \item TCP/UDP/ICMP/ICMP6 checksums \end{itemize} % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \subsection{\label{background:transition:statefulnat64}Stateful NAT64} Stateful NAT64 as defined in RFC6146\cite{rfc6146} defines how to cretate 1:n mappings between IPv6 and IPv4 hosts. The motivation for stateful NAT64 is similar to stateful NAT44\cite{/rfc3022}: it allows translating many IPv6 addresses to one IPv4 address. While the opposite translation is also technically possible, the differences in address space don't justify its use in general. Stateful NAT64 in particular uses information in higher level protocols to multiplex connections: Given one IPv4 address and the tcp protocol, outgoing connections from IPv6 hosts can dynamically mapped to the range of possible tcp ports. After a session is closed, the port can be reused again. \begin{figure}[h] \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{statefulnat64} \centering \caption{Stateful NAT64} \label{fig:statefulnat64} \end{figure} The selection of mapped ports is usually based on the availability on the IPv4 side and not related to the original port. To support stateful NAT64, the translator needs to store the mapping in a table and purge entries regularly. Stateful usually NAT64 uses information found in protocols at layer 4 like TCP \cite{rfc793} or UDP \cite{rfc768}. However it can also support ICMP \cite{rfc792} or ICMP6 \cite{rfc4443}. % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \subsection{\label{background:transition:Protocol dependent}Higher layer Protocol Dependent Translation} Further translation can be achieved by using information in higher level protocols like HTTP \cite{rfc2616} or TLS \cite{rfc4366}. Application proxies like nginx \cite{nginx:_nginx_high_perfor_load_balan} use layer 7 protocol information to proxy towards backends. Within this proxying method, the underlying IP protocol can be changed from IPv6 to IPv4 and vice versa. However the requested hostname that is usually used for selecting the backend is encrypted in TLS 1.3 \cite{rfc8446}, which poses a challenge for implementations. While protocol dependent translation has the highest amount of information to choose from for translation, complex parsers or even cryptographic methods are required for it. That reduces the opportunities of protocol dependent translation % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \subsection{\label{background:transition:dns64}DNS64 - FIXME} DNS64 \cite{rfc6174} % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \subsection{\label{background:transition:prefixnat}Prefix based NAT - FIXME} Explain how it works in general **** RFC6052 - Defining well known prefix 64:ff9b::/96 - Defining embedding depending on prefix: /32../104 in 8 bit steps - Longer than /96: suffix support - v4 to v6 / vice versa \begin{verbatim} +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |PL| 0-------------32--40--48--56--64--72--80--88--96--104---------| +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |32| prefix |v4(32) | u | suffix | +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |40| prefix |v4(24) | u |(8)| suffix | +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |48| prefix |v4(16) | u | (16) | suffix | +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |56| prefix |(8)| u | v4(24) | suffix | +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |64| prefix | u | v4(32) | suffix | +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |96| prefix | v4(32) | +--+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ ***** DONE Case IPv6 initiator CLOSED: [2019-08-13 Tue 10:59] - Mapping whole IPv4 Internet in /96 prefix - Session information for mapping reply - Timeout handling in controller ****** TODO IPv6 udp -> IPv4 - Got 4-5 tuple ([proto], src ip, src port, dst ip, dst port) - Does not / never signal end - Needs timeout for cleaning up ****** TODO IPv6 tcp -> IPv4 - Similar to udp - react on FIN/RST (?) -- could be an addition ****** TODO IPv6 icmp6 -> IPv4 - usual protocol specific changes - Session?? - src ip, dst ip, code ? ***** TODO Case IPv4 initiator - Needs upper level protol ****** Controller Logic - controller selects "outgoing" IPv4 address range => base for sessions - IPv4 addresses can be "random" (in our test case), but need to be unique - switch does not need to know about the "range", only about sessions - on session create, controller selects "random" ip (ring?) - on session create, controller selects "random port" (next in range?) - on session create controller adds choice into 2 tables: incoming, outgoing >>> ipaddress.IPv6Network("2001:db8:100::/96")[int(ipaddress.IPv4Address("10.0.0.1"))] IPv6Address('2001:db8:100::a00:1') \end{verbatim} from RFC6052 % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \section{\label{background:checksums}Protocol Checksums} One challenge for translating IPv6-IPv4 are checksums of higher level protocols like TCP and UDP that incorporate information from the lower level protocols. The pseudo header for upper layer protocols for IPv6 is defined in RFC2460 \cite{rfc2460} and shown in figure \ref{fig:ipv6pseudoheader}, the IPv4 pseudo header for TCP and UDP are defined in RFC768 and RFC793 and are shown in \ref{fig:ipv4pseudoheader}. \begin{figure}[h] \begin{verbatim} +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Source Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Destination Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Upper-Layer Packet Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | zero | Next Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \end{verbatim} \centering \caption{IPv6 Pseudo Header} \label{fig:ipv6pseudoheader} \end{figure} When translating, the checksum fields in the higher protocols need to be adjusted. The checksums for TCP and UDP is calculated not only over the pseudo headers, but also contain the payload of the packet. This is important, because some targets (like the NetPFGA) do not allow to access the payload. \begin{figure}[h] \begin{verbatim} 0 7 8 15 16 23 24 31 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ | source address | +--------+--------+--------+--------+ | destination address | +--------+--------+--------+--------+ | zero |protocol| UDP length | +--------+--------+--------+--------+ \end{verbatim} \centering \caption{IPv4 Pseudo Header} \label{fig:ipv4pseudoheader} \end{figure} % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \section{\label{background:networkdesign}Network Designs} \begin{figure}[h] \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{v4only} \centering \caption{IPv4 only network} \label{fig:v4onlynet} \end{figure} In relation to IPv6 and IPv4, there are in general three different network designs possible: The oldest form are IPv4 only networks (see figure \ref{fig:v4onlynet}. These networks consist of hosts that are either not configured for IPv6 or are even technically incapable of enabling the IPv6 protocol. These nodes are connected to an IPv4 router that is connected to the Internet. That router might be capable of translating IPv4 to IPv6 and vice versa. \begin{figure}[h] \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{dualstack} \centering \caption{Dualstack network} \label{fig:dualstacknet} \end{figure} With the introduction of IPv6, hosts can have a separate IP stack active and in that configuration hosts are called ``dualstack hosts'' (see figure \ref{fig:dualstacknet}). Dualstack hosts are capabale of reaching both IPv6 and IPv4 hosts directly without the need of any translation mechanism. The last possible network design is based on IPv6 only hosts, as shown in figure \ref{fig:v6onlynet}. While it is technically easy to disable IPv4, it seems that completely removing the IPv4 stack in current operating systems is not an easy task \cite{ungleich:_ipv4}. \begin{figure}[h] \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{v6only} \centering \caption{IPv6 only network} \label{fig:v6onlynet} \end{figure} While the three network designs look similar, there are significant differences in operating them and limitations that are not easy to circumvent. In the following sections we describe the limitations and reason how a translation mechanism like our NAT64 implementation should be deployed. % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \subsection{\label{background:networkdesign:ipv4}IPv4 only network limitations} As shown in figures \ref{fig:ipv4header} and \ref{fig:ipv6header} the IPv4 address size is 32 bit, while the IPv6 address size is 128 bit. Without an extension to the address space, there is no protocol independent mapping of IPv4 address to IPv6 (see section \ref{background:transition:nat64}) that can cover the whole IPv6 address space. Thus IPv4 only hosts can never address every host in the IPv6 Internet. While protocol dependent translations can try to minimise the impact, accessing all IPv6 addresses independent of the protcol is not possible. % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \subsection{\label{background:networkdesign:dualstack}Dualstack network maintenance} While dualstack hosts can address any host in either IPv6 or IPv4 networks, the deployment of dualstack hosts comes with a major disadvantage: all network configuration double. The required routing tables double, the firewall rules roughly double\footnote{The rulesets even for identical policies in IPv6 and IPv4 networks are not identical, but similar. For this reason we state that roughly double the amount of firewall rules are required for the same policy to be applied.} and the number of network supporting systems (like DHCPv4, DHCPv6, router advertisement daemons, etc.) also roughly double. Additionally services that run on either IPv6 or IPv4 might need to be configured to run in dualstack mode as well and not every software might be capable of that. So while there is the instant benefit of not requiring any transition mechanism or translation method, we argue that the added complexity (and thus operational cost) of running dual stack networks can be significant. % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- \subsection{\label{background:networkdesign:v6only}IPv6 only networks} IPv6 only networks are in our opinion the best choice for long term deployments. The reasons for this are as follows: First of all hosts eventually will need to support IPv6 and secondly IPv6 hosts can address the whole 32 bit IPv4 Internet mapped in a single /96 IPv6 network. IPv6 only networks also allow the operators to focus on one IP stack.