Internet DRAFT - draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience
draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience
Internet Engineering Task Force G. Chen
Internet-Draft Z. Cao
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: January 31, 2013 C. Byrne
T-Mobile USA
C. Xie
China Telecom
D. Binet
France Telecom
July 30, 2012
NAT64 Operational Experiences
draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-03
Abstract
This document summarizes stateful NAT64 deployment scenarios and
operational experience with NAT64-CGN(NAT64 Carrier Grade NATs) and
NAT64-CE (NAT64 Customer Edge).
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 31, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. NAT64-CGN Deployment Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. NAT64-CGN Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. High Availability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Quality of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Load Balancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. MTU Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. NAT64-CE Deployment Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. NAT64-CE Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Anti-DDoS/SYN Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. User Behavior Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. DNS Resolving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Load Balancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. MTU Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Additional Author List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
1. Introduction
Continued development of global Internet demands IP address
consumption. The IANA global IPv4 address pool was exhausted on
February 3, 2011. IPv6 is the only sustainable solution for
numbering nodes on the Internet. Network operators have to deploy
IPv6 networks in order to meet the numbering needs of the expanding
internet without available IPv4 addresses. IPv4 numbering resources
and IPv4-only schemes to reduce the numbering utilization during the
transitional will not be adequate to maintain connectivity and
deliver Internet services.
As IPv6 deployment continues, IPv6 networks and hosts will need to
coexist with IPv4 numbered resources. The Internet will include
nodes that are Dual-stack, nodes that remain IPv4-only and IPv6-only
nodes. It may be desirable in some cases for operators to deploy a
single stack network, for reasons of simplicity, cost or performance
relative to a dual stack network. As IPv4 utilization eventually
declines, the appeal of single stack network deployments will likely
increase. In a dual-stack architecture, operators have to maintain
double management interfaces, provide operational support systems for
two networks, track multiple addresses in different families per
host, trouble shoot host behavior related to dual stack operation and
engage in other activities that increase the overhead of operating
the network.
Single stack IPv6 network deployment can simplify the network
provisioning. Some justification has been described in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]. IPv6-only networks confer some benefits to
mobile operators employing them. In the mobile context, it enables
the use of a single IPv6 PDP(Packet Data Protocol), which eliminates
significant network cost caused by doubling the PDP count on a mass
of legacy mobile terminals. In broadband networks overall, it can
allow for the scaling of edge-network growth decoupled from IPv4
numbering limitations.
In a transition scenario, an existing network may rely on the IPv4
stack for a long time. There is also the troublesome trend of access
network providers squatting on IPv4 address space that they do not
own. Allowing for interconnection between IPv4-only nodes and IPv6-
only nodes is a critical capability. Widespread dual-stack
deployments have not materialized at the anticipated rate over the
last 10 years on possible conclusion being that legacy networks will
not make the jump quickly. A translation mechanism based on a
NAT64[RFC6146] function might be a key element of the internet
infrastructure supporting such legacy networks.
[RFC6036] reported at least 30% operators plan to run some kind of
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
translator (presumably NAT64/DNS64). Advice on NAT64 deployment and
operation is therefore of some importance. [RFC6586] documented the
implications for ipv6 only networks. This document intends to be
specific to NAT64 network planning.
In regards to IPv4/IPv6 translation, [RFC6144] has described a
framework of enabling networks to make interworking possible between
IPv4-only and IPv6-only networks. Three scenarios are described, "An
IPv6 Network to the IPv4 Internet", "The IPv6 Internet to an IPv4
Network" and "An IPv6 Network to an IPv4 Network" where a NAT64
function is relevant. The scenario of "The IPv6 Internet to the IPv4
Internet" seems to be the ideal case for inter-network translation
technology. This document has focused on the three cases and further
categorized different NAT64 location and use case. The principle
distinction of location is if the NAT64 is located in a NAT64-CGN
(Carrier Grade Nat) or NAT64-CE (Customer Edge). NAT64-CGN
corresponds to the scenario "IPv6 Network to IPv4 Internet". The
NAT64-CE location roughly corresponds to the "IPv6 Internet to IPv4
Network" and "IPv6 Network to IPv4 Network" scenarios. Based on
different NAT64 modes, different considerations have been described
for ISPs to facilitate NAT64 deployments.
2. Terminology
The terms of NAT-CGN/CE are understood to be a topological
distinction indicating different features employed in a NAT64
deployment.
NAT64-CGN: A NAT64-CGN (Carrier Grade Nat) is placed in an ISP
network and managed by an administrative entity, e.g. operator.
From an administrator view, a NAT64-CGN usually forwards outbound
traffic into an IPv4 network. IPv6 only subscribers leverage the
NAT64-CGN to be served by existing IPv4 internet services. The
ISP as an administrative entity takes full control on the IPv6
side, but has limited or no control on the IPv4 side. ISP's
should attempt to accommodate the behavior of IPv4 networks and
services.
NAT64-CE: A NAT64-CE (Customer Edge) is placed at the edge of
customer network, e.g. a network operated by an Enterprise or
Consumer. A NAT64-CE makes IPv4 services accessible for the IPv6
only users. An upstream entity and ISP usually operates an IPv4
and potentially IPv6 network respectively. IPv6 access is the
common infrastructure behind the NAT64-CE.
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
3. NAT64-CGN Deployment Experiences
A NAT64-CGN deployment scenario is depicted in Figure 1
-----------
---------- // \\
// \\ / \
/ +----+ \
| |XLAT| |
| An IPv6 +----+ The IPv4 |
| Network +----+ Internet | XLAT: IPv6/IPv4
| |DNS | | Translator
\ +----+ / DNS: DNS64
\\ // \ /
--------- \\ //
-----------
====>
Figure 1: NAT64-CGN Scenario: IPv6 Network to IPv4 Internet
3.1. NAT64-CGN Networking
The NAT64-CGN use case is employed to connect IPv6-only users to the
IPv4 Internet. The NAT64 gateway performs protocol translation from
an IPv6 packet header to an IPv4 packet header and vice versa
according to the Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]. Address translation maps
IPv6 addresses to IPv4 addresses and vice versa for return traffic.
All connections to the IPv4 Internet from IPv6-only clients must
traverse the NAT64-CGN. It is advantageous from the vantage-point of
troubleshooting and traffic engineering to carry the IPv6 traffic
natively for as long as possible within an access network and
translates only at or near the network egress.
In mobile networks, various possibilities can be envisaged in which
to deploy the NAT64 function. Whichever option is selected, the
NAT64 function will be deployed beyond the GGSN (Gateway GPRS Support
Node) or PDN-GW (Public Data Network-Gateway), i.e. first IP node in
currently deployed mobile architectures.
In a given implementation, NAT64 functionality can be provided by
either a dedicated GW device or an multifunction gateway with
integrated NAT64 functionality. In standalone NAT64, NAT64-CGN is
placed to the side of a BNG or CR. An embedded NAT64 deployment
would be integrated with an existing GW. Capacities of an existing
GW can be potentially limited by the inserted functionality. In a
mobile context, the NAT64 function can be co-located with GGSN/PDN-GW
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
or it can be embedded in an existing FW/NAT44 already deployed in
support of IPv4 NAT or, the function can be collocated on a router.
Whatever the solution retained for the co-location option, impact on
existing services and legal obligations have to be assessed.
3.2. High Availability Considerations
High Availability (HA) is a major requirement for every service and
network service.
Two mechanisms are typically used to achieve high availability, i.e.
cold-standby and hot-standby. Cold-standby systems have synchronized
configuration and mechanism to failover traffic between the hot and
cold systems such as VRRP [RFC5798] . Unlike hot-standby, cold-
standby does not synchronize NAT64 session state. This makes cold-
standby less resource intensive and generally simpler, but it
requires clients to re-establish sessions when a fail-over occurs.
Hot-stanby has all the features of cold-standby but must also
synchronize the binding information base (BIB). Given that short
lived sessions account for most of the bindings, hot-standby does not
offer much benefit for those sessions. Consideration should be given
to the importance (or lack thereof) of maintaining bindings for long
lived sessions across failovers.
3.3. Traceability
Traceablility is required in many cases to identify an attacker or a
host that launches malicious attacks and/or for various other
purposes, such as accounting requirements. NAT64 devices are
required to log events like creation and deletion of translations and
information about the occupied resources. There are two different
demands for traceability,i.e. online or offline.
o Regarding the Online requirements, XFF (X-Forwarded-For)
[I-D.ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded]would be a candidate, it appends
IPv6 address of subscribers to HTTP headers which is passed on to
WEB servers, and the querier server can lookup radius servers for
the target subscribers based on IPv6 addresses included in XFF
HTTP headers. X-Forwarded-For is specific to HTTP, requires the
use of an application aware gateway, cannot in general be applied
to requests made over HTTPs and cannot be assumed to be preserved
end-to-end as it may be overwritten by other application-aware
proxies such as load balancers.
o Some potential solutions to online traceability are explore in
[I-D.ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis].
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
o A NAT64-CGN could also deliver NAT64 sessions (BIB and STE) to a
Radius server by extension of the radius protocol. Such an
extension is an alternative solution for online traceability,
particularly high performance would be required on Radius servers
on order to achieve this.
o For off-line traceability, syslog might be a good choice.
[RFC6269] indicates address sharing solutions generally need to
record and store information for specific periods of time. A
stateful NAT64 is supposed to manage one mapping per session. A
large volume of logs poses a challenge for storage and processing.
In order to mitigate the issue,
[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]proposed to pre-allocated a
group of ports for each specific IPv6 host. A trade-off among
address multiplexing efficiency, port randomization
security[RFC6056] and logging storage compression should be
considered during the planning. A hybrid mode combining
deterministic and dynamic port assignment was recommended
regarding the uncertainty of user traffic.
3.4. Quality of Experience
NAT64 is providing a translation capability between IPv6 and IPv4
end-nodes. In order to provide the reachability between two IP
address families, NAT64-CGN has to implement appropriate ALGs where
address translation is not itself sufficient and security mechanisms
do not render it infeasible. e.g. FTP-ALG[RFC6384], RSTP-ALG, H.323-
ALG,etc. It should be noted that ALGs may impact the performance on
a NAT64 box to some extent. ISPs as well as content providers might
choose to avoid situations where the imposition of an ALG might be
required. At the same time, it is also important to remind customers
that IPv6 end-to-end usage does not require ALG imposition and
therefore results in a better overall user experience.
The service experience should be optimized around stateful NAT
processing. Session status normally is managed by a static life-
cycle. In some cases, NAT resource maybe significantly consumed by
largely inactive users. The NAT translator and other customers would
suffer from service degradation due to port consummation by other
subscribers using the same NAT64 device. A flexible NAT session
control is desirable to resolve the issues. PCP[I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
could be a candidate to provide such capability. A NAT64-CGN should
integrate with a PCP server, to allocate available IPv4 address/Port
resources. Resources could be assigned to PCP clients through PCP
MAP/PEER mode. Such an ability should also be considered to upgrade
user experiences, e.g. assigning different sizes of port ranges for
different subscribers. Such a mechanism is also helpful to minimize
terminal battery consumption reducing the number of keepalive
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
messages to be sent by terminal devices.
3.5. Load Balancer
Load balancers are an essential tool to avoid the issue of single
points of failure and add additional scale. It is potentially
important to employ load-balancing considering that deployment of
multiple NAT64 devices. Load balancers are required to achieve some
service continuity and scale for customers.
[I-D.zhang-behave-nat64-load-balancing] discusses several ways of
achieving NAT64 load balancing, including anycast based policy and
prefix64 selection based policy, either implemented via
DNS64[RFC6147] or Prefix64 assignments. Since DNS64 is normally co-
located with NAT64 in some scenarios, it could be leveraged to
perform the load balance. For traffic which does not require a DNS
resolution, prefix64 assignment based
on[I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis] could be adopted.
3.6. MTU Consideration
IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an MTU of 1280
octets or greater[RFC2460]. However, in case of NAT64 translation
deployments, some IPv4 MTU constrained link will be used in some
communication path and originating IPv6 nodes may therefore receive
an ICMP Packet Too Big message, reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than
1280. The result would be that IPv6 allows packets to contain a
fragmentation header, without the packet being fragmented into
multiple pieces. [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments] discusses how
this situation could be exploited by an attacker to perform
fragmentation-based attacks, and also proposes an improved handling
of such packets. It required enhancements on protocol level, which
might imply potential upgrade/modifications on behaviors to deployed
nodes. Another approach that potentially avoids this issue is to
configure IPv4 MTU>=1260. It would forbid the occurrence of
PTB<1280. However, such an operational consideration is hard to
universally apply to the legacy "IPv4 Internet".
4. NAT64-CE Deployment Experiences
The NAT64-CE Scenario is depicted in Figure 2
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
--------
// \\ ----------
/ \ // \\
/ +----+ \
| |XLAT| |
| The IPv6 +----+ An IPv4 |
| Internet +----+ Network | XLAT: IPv4/IPv6
| /Network |DNS | | Translator
\ +----+ / DNS: DNS64
\ / \\ //
\\ // ----------
--------
====>
Figure 2: NAT64-CE Scenario: IPv6 Internet/Network to IPv4 Network
4.1. NAT64-CE Networking
Content providers would like to use IPv6 to serve customers since it
allows for the definition of new services without having to integrate
consideration of IPv4 NAT and address limitations of IPv4 networks,
but they have to provide some IPv4 service continuity to their
customers. In some cases, customers outside the network will have
IPv6-only access provided by early adopters before the internal
network. The deployment requirements could be resolved by subsiding
NAT64 to a customer edge, e.g. enterprise-GW. Those cases are sure
to exist for the time being. An administrator of the IPv4 network
needs to be cautious and aware of the operational issues this may
cause, since the native IPv6 is always more desirable than transition
solution.
One potential challenge in the scenario is NAT64-CE facing IPv6
Internet, in which a significant number of IPv6 users may initiate
connections. When increasingly numerous users in IPv6 Internet
access an IPv4 network, scalability concerns(e.g. additional latency,
a single point of failure, IPv4 pool exhaustion, etc) are apt to be
applied. For a given off-the-shelf NAT64-CE, those challenges should
be seriously assessed. Potential issues should be properly
identified. In order to mitigate the issues, it is suggested such
usage should be restrained to a relative small-scale.
For operators who seek a clear precedent for operating reliable IPv6-
only services, it should be well noted that the usage is problematic
at several aspects. In some sense, it's not recommended.
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
4.2. Anti-DDoS/SYN Flood
For every incoming new connection from the IPv6 Internet, the
NAT64-CE creates state and maps that connection to an internally-
facing IPv4 address and port. An attacker can consume the resources
of the NAT64-CE device by sending an excessive number of connection
attempts. Without a DDOS limitation mechanism, the NAT64 is exposed
to attacks from the IPv6 Internet. With service provisioning,
attacks have the potential could also deteriorate service quality.
One consideration in internet content providers is place a L3 load
balancer with capable of line rate DDOS defense, such as the
employment of SYN PROXY-COOKIE. Security domain division is
necessary in this case. Load Balancers could not only serve for
optimization of traffic distribution, but also serve as a DOS
mitigation device
4.3. User Behavior Analysis
IP addresses are usually used as input to geo-location services. The
use of address sharing will prevent these systems from resolving the
location of a host based on IP address alone. Applications that
assume such geographic information may not work as intended. The
possible solutions listed at section 3.3 intended to bridge the gap.
However, the analysis reveals those solutions can't be a optimal
substitution to solve the problem of host identification, in
particular it does not today mitigate problems with source
identification through translation. That makes NAT64-CE usage
becoming a unappealing approach, if customers require source address
tracking.
For the operators, who already deployed NAT64-CE approach, the source
address of the request is obscured without the source address mapping
information previously obtained. It's superior to present mapping
information directly to applications. Some application layer proxies
e.g. XFF (X-Forwarded-For) , can convey this information in-band.
Another approach is to ask application coordinating the information
with NAT logging. But that is not sufficient, since the applications
itself wants to know the original source address from an application
message bus. The logging information may be used by administrators
offline to inspect use behavior and preference analysis, and accurate
advertisement delivery.
4.4. DNS Resolving
In the case of NAT64-CE, it is recommended to follow the
recommendations in [RFC6144]. There is no need for the DNS to
synthesize AAAA from A records, since static AAAA records can be
registered in the authoritative DNS for a given domain to represent
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
these IPv4-only hosts. How to design the FQDN for the IPv6 service
is out-of-scope of this document.
4.5. Load Balancer
Load balancing on NAT64-CE has a couple of considerations. If
dictated by scale or availability requirements traffic should be
balanced among multiple NAT64-CE devices. One point to be noted is
that synthetic AAAA records may be added directly in authoritative
DNS. load balancing based on DNS64 synthetic resource records may not
work in those cases. Secondly, NAT64-CE could also serve as the load
balancer for IPv4 backend servers. There are also some ways of load
balance for the cases, where load balancer is placed in front of
NAT64(s).
4.6. MTU Consideration
As compared to the MTU consideration in NAT64-CGN, the MTU of IPv4
network are strongly recommended to set to more than 1260. Since a
CE IPv4 network is normally operated by a particular administrative
entity, it should take steps to prevent the risk of fragmentation
discussed in [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments].
5. Security Considerations
This document presents the deployment experiences of NAT64 in CGN and
CE scenario, some security considerations are described ib detail
regarding to specific NAT64 mode in section 2 and 3. In general, RFC
6146[RFC6146] provides TCP-tracking, address-dependent filtering
mechanisms to protect NAT64 from DDOS. In NAT64-CGN cases, ISP also
could adopt uRPF and black/white-list to enhance the security by
specifying access policies. for example, NAT64-CGN should forbid
establish NAT64 BIB for incoming IPv6 packets if URPF (Strict or
Loose mode) check does not pass or whose source IPv6 address is
associated to black-lists.
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Dan Wing, Remi Despres,
Fred Baker, Lee Howard and Iljitsch van Beijnum for their helpful
comments. Many thanks to Wesley George and Satoru Matsushima for
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
their reviews.
The authors especially thank Joel Jaeggli for his efforts and
contributions on editing which substantially improves the legibility
of the document.
8. Additional Author List
The following are extended authors who contributed to the effort:
Qiong Sun
China Telecom
Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing 100035
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-58552936
Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
QiBo Niu
ZTE
50,RuanJian Road.
YuHua District,
Nan Jing 210012
P.R.China
Email: niu.qibo@zte.com.cn
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 (work in progress), June 2012.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC5798] Nadas, S., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798, March 2010.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
April 2011.
[RFC6384] van Beijnum, I., "An FTP Application Layer Gateway (ALG)
for IPv6-to-IPv4 Translation", RFC 6384, October 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]
Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., and K.
Sundaresan, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce
Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments",
draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-04 (work in
progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments]
Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "atomic" fragments",
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-00 (work in
progress), February 2012.
[I-D.ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded]
Petersson, A. and M. Nilsson, "Forwarded HTTP Extension",
draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-06 (work in progress),
July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis]
Korhonen, J. and T. Savolainen, "Analysis of solution
proposals for hosts to learn NAT64 prefix",
draft-ietf-behave-nat64-learn-analysis-03 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis]
Boucadair, M., Touch, J., Levis, P., and R. Penno,
"Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host
Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments",
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02 (work in
progress), April 2012.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]
Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-05 (work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.zhang-behave-nat64-load-balancing]
Zhang, D., Xu, X., and M. Boucadair, "Considerations on
NAT64 Load-Balancing",
draft-zhang-behave-nat64-load-balancing-03 (work in
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
progress), July 2011.
[RFC6036] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Emerging Service Provider
Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6036, October 2010.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
January 2011.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.
[RFC6586] Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only
Network", RFC 6586, April 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Gang Chen
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053
China
Email: phdgang@gmail.com
Zhen Cao
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053
China
Email: caozhen@chinamobile.com
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
Cameron Byrne
T-Mobile USA
Bellevue
Washington 98105
USA
Email: cameron.byrne@t-mobile.com
Chongfeng Xie
China Telecom
Room 708 No.118, Xizhimenneidajie
Beijing 100035
P.R.China
Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn
David Binet
France Telecom
Rennes
35000
France
Email: david.binet@orange.com
Chen, et al. Expires January 31, 2013 [Page 16]
