3 KiB
What I want to do: NAT64 static mapping
I want to use different mapped IPv4 networks for (possibly) the same destination IPv6 network.
In other words:
- Network A, 2001:db8::/64, sends to an address in 64:ff9b::/96
- The 8 bit sub network ("range") of 2001:db8::/64, 2001:db8::/120 should be mapped to 10.1.0.0/24
- Network B, 2001:db8:1::/64, sends to an address in 64:ff9b::/96
- The 8 bit sub network ("range") of 2001:db8:1::/64, 2001:db8:1::/120 should be mapped to 10.1.1.0/24
What I tried to do
2 LPM keys
I tried to use one table with two LPM keys, which I would like to match "in order":
table nat64 {
key = {
hdr.ipv6.src_addr: lpm;
hdr.ipv6.dst_addr: lpm;
}
actions = {
controller_debug;
nat64_static;
NoAction;
}
size = NAT64_TABLE_SIZE;
default_action = controller_debug;
}
So matching hdr.ipv6.src_addr first and then if the destination packet is in 64:ff9b::/96, then do NAT64.
This results into the compiler problem
../p4src/static-mapping.p4(121): error: MyIngress.nat64, Multiple LPM keys in table
table nat64 {
^^^^^
How it could be solved
2 tables (recommendation of Nate)
It does not work, when matching the source address first:
table nat64_src {
key = {
hdr.ipv6.src_addr: lpm;
}
actions = {
NoAction;
}
size = NAT64_TABLE_SIZE;
default_action = NoAction;
}
table nat64_dst {
key = {
hdr.ipv6.dst_addr: lpm;
}
actions = {
controller_debug;
nat64_static;
NoAction;
}
size = NAT64_TABLE_SIZE;
default_action = controller_debug;
}
...
apply {
if (nat64_src.apply().hit) {
nat64_dst.apply();
}
}
The entries of nat64_dst.apply() will be all the same, i.e. there will be many 64:ff9b::/96 entries and thus this approach does not work.
Trying to match the destination address first:
...
apply {
if (nat64_dst.apply().hit) {
nat64_src.apply();
}
}
This way repeating destination addresses will still not be set, but this is not a problem as one is enough to proceed into the nat64_src table.
Disadvantage of this approach is that entries from the nat64_dst table cannot be deleted safely anymore, as repeating destination addresses of other networks might be deleted. So while this approach works for testing / development, it does not work for a production setup.
Ternary matching (recommendation of Andy)
Could be a solution, because it offers priorities. Is not exactly what I want to achieve, because I want to do LPM matching, but it could be misused for it.
Double table with using ID of first match (Andy + Nate ideas)
Use the handle of the source network to match again on exact in the 2nd table. This might be a very reasonable approach.