Technical Summary
This document summarizes NAT64 function deployment scenarios and
operational experience. Both NAT64 Carrier Grade NAT (NAT64-CGN) and
NAT64 server Front End (NAT64-FE) are considered in this document.
Working Group Summary
The original discussion is derived from the presentation of
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/v6ops-5.pdf. Afterwards, it
was documented as draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience in Feb 2012. The
working group document is a report developed by several operators on
the use of a NAT64 between an IPv6-only mobile network and the larger
IPv4-only network.
The draft has been discussed at length and in detail. There are some
operators in the working group that have a problem with it because it
openly discusses the use of RFC 6052/6144-6147 IPv4/IPv6 translation
and RFC 4193 ULAs; they hold the viewpoint that translation and the
use of non-global address space is philosophically and operationally
problematic. For example, a matter dealt with in the draft in response
to working group discussion, it often sacrifices geolocation
information that is important to certain types of services. The
authors of the draft also point out that running a dual stack mobile
network is expensive for reasons specific to mobile networks, and view
the trade-offs as acceptable given the economics.
Document Quality
As specified in the abstract, the document is not a protocol or
procedure; it is a report of operational deployment and testing of a
NAT64 service between an IPv6-only mobile network and the larger IPv4
Internet as well as a NAT64 service in an IDC environment. This
testing includes the use of NAT64 CGN and NAT64 FE, its coexistence
with more traditional NAT44, Reliability, Availability, and
Maintainability issues, the transparency or lack of it regarding
source addresses, Quality of Experience, MTU issues, and ULA-related
issues.
Personnel
The document shepherd is Fred Baker. The responsible AD is Joel
Jaegli.