Internet DRAFT - draft-li-intarea-nat64-prefix-dhcp-option
draft-li-intarea-nat64-prefix-dhcp-option
intarea Working Group L. Li
Internet-Draft Y. Cui
Intended status: Standards Track C. Liu
Expires: October 22, 2019 J. Wu
Tsinghua University
F. Baker
J. Palet Martinez
The IPv6 Company
April 20, 2019
DHCPv6 Options for Discovery NAT64 Prefixes
draft-li-intarea-nat64-prefix-dhcp-option-02
Abstract
Several IPv6 transition mechanisms require the usage of stateless or
stateful translators (commonly named as NAT64) able to allow IP/ICMP
communication between IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
Those translators are using either a default Well-Known Prefix (WKP),
and/or one or several additional Network Specific Prefixes (NSP),
which need to be configured into the nodes willing to use the
translator. Different translators will likely have different IPv6
prefixes, to attract traffic to the correct translator. Thus, an
automatic translator prefix discovery method is necessary.
This document defines a DHCPv6-based method to inform DHCPv6 clients
the set of IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes it serves. This DHCPv6 option can
be used by several transition mechanisms such as SIIT, 464XLAT, EAM.
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 https://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 October 22, 2019.
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. New DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. NAT64 Prefix List Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. NAT64 Prefix Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Message Flow Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
Stateless IP/ICMP Translation (SIIT) [RFC7915], describes the basic
translation mechanism (NAT64), which is actually used as the base for
many of the related translation protocols.
Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146], describes a stateful IPv6 to IPv4
translation mechanism, which allows IPv6-only hosts to communicate
with IPv4-only servers using unicast UDP, TCP, or ICMP, by means of
IPv4 public addresses sharing, among multiple IPv6-only hosts.
Unless otherwise stated, references in the rest of this document to
NAT64 (function) should be interpreted as to Stateful NAT64.
The translation of the packet headers is done using the IP/ICMP
translation algorithm defined in [RFC7915] and algorithmically
translating the IPv4 addresses to IPv6 addresses and vice versa,
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
following [RFC6052].
464XLAT [RFC6877] describes an architecture that provides IPv4
connectivity across a network, or part of it, when it is only
natively transporting IPv6. [RFC7849] already suggest the need to
support the CLAT function in order to ensure the IPv4 service
continuity in IPv6-only cellular deployments. The 464XLAT
architecture uses IPv4/IPv6 translation, described in [RFC6144], and
standardized in [RFC6052], [RFC7915], and [RFC6146]. In the 464XLAT
architecture, the CLAT (customer-side NAT46 translator) must
determine which among potentially several PLAT (provider-side NAT64
translator) IPv6 prefixes to use in order to send a packet to the
PLAT that provides the connectivity to its destination.
[RFC7050] describes a mechanism to learn the PLAT-side IPv6 prefix
for protocol translation by DNS64 [RFC6147]. Although it supports
multiple PLAT-side prefix by responding with multiple AAAA records to
a DNS64 query, it does not support mapping IPv4 prefixes to IPv6
prefix, which would be required, for example, if one PLAT has
connectivity to the general Internet following a default route,
another has connectivity to a BGP peer, and a third has connectivity
to a network using private addressing [RFC1918]. Therefore, in the
scenario with multiple PLATs, [RFC7050] does not directly support
destination-based IPv4 routing among PLATs; instead, the DNS64
database must contain equivalent information. It also requires the
additional deployment of DNS64 service in customer-side networks,
which is not required in 464XLAT deployment. Indeed, this scenario,
which may become very common in wired access networks, has not even
been considered by [RFC7051].
464XLAT is in fact, a very frequent usage case of Stateful NAT64 and
actually the predominant one in cellular networks. As indicated in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment], it is expected that in some
scenarios, DNS64 is not used, so mandating the use of [RFC7050] in
those cases it is not a sensible approach.
Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation [RFC7757]
extends SIIT with an Explicit Address Mapping (EAM) algorithm to
facilitate stateless IP/ICMP translation between arbitrary (non-
IPv4-translatable) IPv6 endpoints and IPv4.
Furthermore, [I-D.ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment] and
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas] show that there is an increasing
demand for deployment of NAT64/464XLAT in broadband networks, which
may use PCP [RFC7225], to learn the NAT64 prefixes, however is not
widely deployed. Instead, DHCPv6/DHCPv6-PD [RFC8415] is the
predominant provisioning protocol for broadband CEs (Customer Edge
Routers).
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
DHPCv6/DHCPv6-PD is also supported in 3GPP specifications for
cellular networks ([RFC6459], [RFC7066], [RFC7849]), even if today is
not predominant, but it is expected that the deployment of cellular
broadband services will use it, as it is the only standard way to
provide shorter prefixes to CEs through the cellular interphase.
Finally, even if [RFC7051] discarded DHCPv6 as one of the interesting
choices for learning the NAT64 prefix, the deployment considerations
have evolved, and in fact there is a new Router Advertising option
([I-D.ietf-6man-ra-pref64]), which provides an alternative in some
cases, which is complementary to the one suggested by this document.
Consequently, this document proposes a method for the discovery of
the NAT64 prefix, based on DHCPv6, which is widely deployed and
supported in customer networks. It defines two new DHCPv6 options
for use by a DHCPv6 client to discover the NAT64 IPv6 prefix(es).
Also, the proposed mechanism can deal with the scenario with multiple
independent DNS64 databases supporting separate translators.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. New DHCPv6 Option
3.1. NAT64 Prefix List Option Format
The NAT Prefix List Option is a container for NAT64 Prefix Option(s).
A NAT64 Prefix List Option MAY contain multiple NAT64 Prefix Options.
The format of the NAT64 Prefix List Option is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX_LIST | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ NAT64_PREFIX-options +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: The format of NAT64 Prefix List option
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
o option-code: OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX_LIST (TBA1)
o option-length: length of NAT64_PREFIX-options, specified in
octets.
o NAT64_PREFIX-options: one or more OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX options.
3.2. NAT64 Prefix Option Format
The NAT64 Prefix Option is encapsulated in the NAT64 Prefix List
Option. This option allows the mapping of destination IPv4 address
ranges (contained in the IPv4 Prefix List) to a NAT64 IPv6 prefix.
If there is more than one such prefix, each prefix comes in its own
option, with its associated IPv4 prefix list. In this way, the
DHCPv6 client can select the NAT64 with the corresponding destination
IPv4 address.
The format of the NAT64 Prefix Option is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAT64-Type | NAT64-prelen |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAT64-prefix |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAT64-suffix |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. (optional) .
. IPv4 Prefix List (variable length) .
. (see Figure 3) .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: The format of NAT64 Prefix option
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4-prelen | IPv4 Prefix (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (cont.) | IPv4-prelen | IPv4 Prefix (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix (cont.) | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: The format of IPv4 Prefix List field
o option-code: OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX (TBA2)
o type-field: NAT64-Type (TBA3)
o option-length: 1 + length of NAT64-prefix + length of IPv4 Prefix
List, specified in octets.
o NAT64-prelen: length of NAT64-prefix.
o NAT64-prefix: The NAT64 IPv6 prefix to be used by the DHCPv6
client for the IPv6 address synthesis.
o NAT64-suffix: The NAT64 suffix to be used by the DHCPv6 client for
the IPv6 address synthesis. Not used in case of using the WKP
(i.e., 64:ff9b::/96) or any other NSP (Network-Specific Prefix)
which a length of 96 bits (/96).
o IPv4 Prefix List: This is an optional field. The format of the
IPv4 Prefix List is shown in Figure 3. It is a list of zero or
more IPv4 Prefixes. Each entry is formed by IPv4-prelen and IPv4
Prefix. The total length of the field is 5*number of IPv4
prefixes.
o IPv4-prelen: the length of the IPv4 Prefix.
o IPv4 Prefix: the destination-based IPv4 Prefix. The length is 4
octets.
4. Client Behavior
The client requests the OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX_LIST option using the
Option Request option (ORO) in every Solicit, Request, Renew, Rebind,
and Information-request message. The NAT64-Type field defines the
mechanism being used. If the DHCPv6 server includes the
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX_LIST option in its response, the DHCPv6 client
may use the contained NAT64-prefix to translate the destination IPv4
address into the destination IPv6 address.
When receiving the OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX option with IPv4 Prefix List,
the DHCPv6 client MUST record the received IPv6 prefix and the
corresponding IPv4 prefixes in IPv4 Prefix List. When receiving the
OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX option without IPv4 Prefix List, the DHCPv6
client MUST treat the IPv6 prefix and the default IPv4 prefix
0.0.0.0/0 as one of the records.
If the DHCPv6 client loses contact with the DHCPv6 server, the DHCPv6
client SHOULD clear the prefix(es) it learned from the DHCPv6 server.
When translating the destination IPv4 address into the destination
IPv6 address, DHCPv6 client MUST search an IPv4 routing database
using the longest-match-first rule and select the IPv6 prefix
offering that IPv4 prefix.
5. Message Flow Illustration
The figure below shows an example of message flow for a Client
learning IPv6 prefixes using DHCPv6.
In this example, two IPv6 prefixes are provided by the DHCPv6 server.
The first IPv6 prefix is 2001:db8:122:300::/56, the corresponding
IPv4 prefixes are 192.0.2.0/24 and 198.51.100.0/24. The second IPv6
prefix is 2001:db8:122::/48, the corresponding IPv4 prefix is
192.0.2.128/25.
When the DHCPv6 client receives the packet with destination IPv4
address 192.0.2.1, according to the rule of longest prefix match, the
NAT64 with IPv6 prefix 2001:db8:122::/48 is chosen. In the same way,
the NAT64 with IPv6 prefix 2001:db8:122::/48 is chosen.
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
+---------------+ +-----------------+
| DHCPv6 Client | | DHCPv6 server |
+---------------+ +-----------------+
| DHCPv6 query for IPv6 prefix |
|--------------------------------------------------->|
| ORO with OPTION_NAT64_PREFIX_LIST |
| |
| DHCPv6 response with: |
| NAT64PREFIX{ |
| NAT64-v6-pre = 2001:db8:122:300::/56 |
| NAT64-v4-pre = 192.0.2.0/24 |
| NAT64-v4-pre = 198.51.100.0/24} |
| NAT64PREFIX{ |
| NAT64-v6-pre = 2001:db8:122::/48 |
| NAT64-v4-pre = 192.0.2.128/25} |
|<---------------------------------------------------|
| |
|
| +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| | NAT64 1 | | NAT64 2 |
| +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| NAT64-v6-pre = NAT64-v6-pre =
| 2001:db8:122:300::/56 2001:db8:122::/48
| NAT64-v4-pre = NAT64-v4-pre =
| 192.0.2.0/24 192.0.2.128/25
| 198.51.100.0/24 |
| | |
| Dest IPv4 addr: | |
| 192.0.2.1 | |
| Dest IPv6 addr: | |
| 2001:db8:122:300::c000:201 | |
|----------------------------->| |
| | |
| |
| Dest IPv4 addr: 192.0.2.193 |
| Dest IPv6 addr: 2001:db8:122::c000:2c1 |
|--------------------------------------------------->|
Figure 4: The example figure of the process procedure
6. Security Considerations
Considerations for security in this type of environment are primarily
around the operation of the DHCPv6 protocol and the databases it
uses.
In the DHCPv6 server, should the database be compromised, it will
deliver incorrect data to its DHCPv6 clients. In the DHCPv6 client,
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
should its database be compromised by attack or polluted by an
incorrect DHCPv6 server database, it will route data incorrectly. In
both cases, the security of the systems and their databases in an
operational matter, not managed by protocol.
However, the operation of the DHCPv6 protocol itself is also required
to be correct - the server and its clients must recognize valid
requests and reject invalid ones. Therefore, DHCPv6 exchanges MUST
be secured as described in [RFC8415].
7. IANA Considerations
IANA should allocate two DHCPv6 option codes for use by
OPTION_V6_PLATPREFIX_LIST and OPTION_V6_PLATPREFIX from the "Option
Codes" table. Similarly, a request to IANA for assigning the
NAT64-Type field codes. The following initial values are assigned in
this document (values are 16-bit unsigned intergers).
Name | Value | RFC
-----------------+---------+---------
Unspecified | 0x00 | RFC6052
SIIT | 0x01 | RFC7915
Stateful NAT64 | 0x02 | RFC6146
EAM-SIIT | 0x03 | RFC7757
8. Acknowledgements
The authors will like to recognize the inputs from Tore Anderson in a
previous version of this work. Mohamed Boucadair provided very
significant inputs.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-ra-pref64]
Colitti, L., Kline, E., and J. Linkova, "Discovering
PREF64 in Router Advertisements", draft-ietf-6man-ra-
pref64-00 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment]
Palet, J., "Additional NAT64/464XLAT Deployment Guidelines
in Operator and Enterprise Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-
nat64-deployment-05 (work in progress), April 2019.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas]
Palet, J., Liu, H., and M. Kawashima, "Requirements for
IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support IPv4 Connectivity
as-a-Service", draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-15
(work in progress), January 2019.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6144>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC7051] Korhonen, J., Ed. and T. Savolainen, Ed., "Analysis of
Solution Proposals for Hosts to Learn NAT64 Prefix",
RFC 7051, DOI 10.17487/RFC7051, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7051>.
[RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address
Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7757>.
[RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley,
N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner,
"An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849>.
[RFC7915] Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
"IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.
Authors' Addresses
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
Lishan Li
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-15201441862
Email: lilishan9248@126.com
Yong Cui
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6260-3059
Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Cong Liu
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: gnocuil@gmail.com
Jianping Wu
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5983
Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn
Fred Baker
Goleta, CA 93117
United States
Email: fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Prefix Discovery by DHCPv6 April 2019
Jordi Palet Martinez
The IPv6 Company
Molino de la Navata, 75
La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid 28420
Spain
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
URI: http://www.theipv6company.com/
Li, et al. Expires October 22, 2019 [Page 13]
