Using PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT
draft-boucadair-pcp-nat-reveal-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Tirumaleswar Reddy.K , Prashanth Patil , Dan Wing | ||
| Last updated | 2012-11-28 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-boucadair-pcp-nat-reveal-00
PCP Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft France Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track T. Reddy
Expires: June 1, 2013 P. Patil
D. Wing
Cisco
November 28, 2012
Using PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT
draft-boucadair-pcp-nat-reveal-00
Abstract
This document describes how to use PCP to retrieve the identify of a
host behind a NAT. Two use cases are discussed and the PCP
applicability is analyzed. This document extends PCP with a new
OpCode: QUERY.
The proposed mechanism is valid for all NAT flavors including NAT44,
NAT64 or NPTv6.
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 June 1, 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
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Policy and Charging Control Architecture . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. NAT between the PCEF and AF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. NAT before PCEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. PCP Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. NAT between the PCEF and AF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. NAT before PCEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. QUERY OpCode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. QUERY Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. QUERY Response Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Generating a QUERY Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Processing a QUERY Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Processing a QUERY Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Applicability Scope of QUERY OpCode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
1. Introduction
As reported in [RFC6269], several issues are encountered when an IP
address is shared among several subscribers. These issues are
encountered in various deployment contexts: e.g., Carrier Grade NAT
(CGN), application proxies or A+P [RFC6346].
This document extends Port Control Protocol [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] to
identify a host among those sharing the same IP address in certain
scenarios.
The proposed technique can be used independently or combined with the
host identifier, denoted as HOST_ID defined in
[I-D.ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis].
Additional scenarios requiring host identification are listed in
[I-D.boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios].
2. Requirements Language and Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This note uses terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].
3. Problem Space
3.1. Policy and Charging Control Architecture
Figure 1 depicts a reference architecture of a mobile network
[RFC6342].
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
+-----+ +-----+
| AAA | | PCRF|
+-----+ +-----+
\ /
\ / /-
\ / / I
UE BS \ / / n
| /\ +-----+ /-----------\ +-----+ /-----------\ +----+ / t
+-+ /_ \---| ANG |/ Operator's \| PCEF|/ Operator's \| BR |/ e
| |---/ \ +-----+\ IP Network /+-----+\ IP Network /+----+\ r
+-+ \-----------/ \-----------/ \ n
\ e
\ t
+-----+
| AF |
+-----+
Figure 1: Mobile Network Archtecture
The main involved functional elements are:
o UE (User Equipment) is a mobile node.
o Policy and Charging Rule Function (PCRF) which is responsible for
determining which policy and charging control rules are to be
applied [TS.23203].
o Policy and Charging Enforcement Function (PCEF) which performs
policy enforcement (e.g., Quality of Service (QoS)) and flow-based
charging [TS.23203].
o Application Function (AF) is an element offering applications that
require dynamic policy and/or charging control [TS.23203].
o Access Network Gateway (ANG), Base Station (BS) and Border Router
(BR) are defined in [RFC6342].
Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 explain the encountered problems to
identify individual UEs when a NAT is involved in the data path. The
use of PCP to solve those problems is analyzed in Section 4.
3.2. NAT between the PCEF and AF
Figure 2 shows a scenario where a NAT function is located between the
PCEF and AF.
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
PCP Client
+------+
| PCRF |-----------------+
+------+ |
| |
+----+ +------+ +-----+ +-----+
| UE |------| PCEF |---| NAT |----| AF |
+----+ +------+ +-----+ +-----+
PCP
Aware
Figure 2: NAT between PCEF and AF
The main issue in this case is that PCEF, PCRF and AF all receive
information bound to the same UE but cannot correlate between the
piece of data visible for each entity. Concretely,
o PCEF is aware of the IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber
Identity) and an internal IP address assigned to the UE.
o AF receives an external IP address and port as assigned by the NAT
function.
o PCRF is not able to correlate between the external IP address/port
assigned by the NAT and the internal IP address and IMSI of the
UE. For instance, the offered QoS on internal IPv4 address and
the (shared) external IPv4 address may need to be correlated for
accounting purposes.
o The IP address seen by the AF is shared among multiple UEs using
NAT, the PCRF needs to be able to inspect the NAT binding to
disambiguate among the individual UEs. AF will not be able to
treat UE traffic based on policy provided by PCRF.
This scenario can be generalized as follows (Figure 3):
o Policy Enforcement Point (PEP, [RFC2753])
o Policy Decision Point (PDP, [RFC2753])
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
PCP Client
+------+
| PDP |-----------------+
+------+ |
| |
+----+ +------+ +-----+ +------+
|Host|------| PEP |---| NAT |----|Server|
+----+ +------+ +-----+ +------+
PCP
Aware
Figure 3: NAT between PEP and Server
3.3. NAT before PCEF
Figure 4 shows an alternative scenario in which a NAT function is
located before PCEF. The main issue is that PCEF and AF are only
aware of the external IP address and the external port number
assigned by the NAT function. PCEF/AF will fail to identify each UE
behind NAT since multiple UEs share the same external IP address and
thus are unable to treat incoming connections differently.
PCP Client
+-------+
| PCRF |------+
+-------+ |
| |
+----+ +------+ +-----+ +-----+
| UE |------| NAT |---|PCEF |----| AF |
+----+ +------+ +-----+ +-----+
PCP
Aware
Figure 4: NAT before PCEF
This scenario can be generalized as follows (Figure 5):
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
PCP Client
+------+
| PDP |------+
+------+ |
| |
+----+ +------+ +-----+ +------+
|Host|------| NAT |---| PEP |----|Server|
+----+ +------+ +-----+ +------+
PCP
Aware
Figure 5: NAT before PEP
4. PCP Applicability
This section discusses how PCP can be used to solve the problems
described in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3.
4.1. NAT between the PCEF and AF
A solution to solve the problem discussed in Section 3.2 is to enable
a PCP Server to control the NAT and enable a PCP Client in the PCRF.
The updated interaction between PCRF, PCEF and AF is detailed below.
o The PCP server controlling the NAT is configured to accept PCP
requests with THIRD_PARTY Option from authorized PCP clients
(i.e., PCRF).
o PCRF is configured with the IP address of the PCP Server.
o The PCRF is aware of the following 5-tuple of each flow {Internal
IP address of UE, Internal Port, Protocol, Remote Peer IP address,
Remote Port number} learnt from PCEF. PCRF is also aware of the
following 5-tuple of each flow {External IP address, External
Port, Protocol, Remote Peer IP address, Remote Port number} learnt
from AF.
o The PCRF generates PCP PEER request with THIRD_PARTY option which
has Internal IP Address set to the UE's Internal IP address
provided by the PCEF.
* The Internal Port, Protocol, Remote Peer Port, Remote Peer IP
Address fields of the PEER request are set by the PCRF
according to the 5-tuple flow information provided by PCEF.
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
* Suggested External Port and Suggested External IP Address are
set to zero.
* Requested Lifetime field is set to a very low value (see
Section 12.3 of [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]).
o Upon the receipt of the PEER response, the PCRF compares the
External IP Address and Port learnt with the 5-tuple flow
information provided by the AF to correlate external IP address/
port associated with the mapping and the internal IP address/port
of the flow.
o PCRF notifies PCEF/AF to enforce relevant policies for the UE.
4.2. NAT before PCEF
A solution to solve the problem discussed in Section 3.3 is to extend
PCP with a new OpCode called QUERY (see Section 5).
The updated interaction between PCRF, PCEF and AF is detailed below:
o The PCP server controlling the NAT is configured to accept QUERY
requests Section 5 from authorized PCP clients such as PCRF.
Query requests must not be received in the Internet-facing
interface but from an internal interface (e.g., dedicated
management interface).
o PCRF generates a PCP QUERY request with External IP Address,
External Port, Remote Peer IP address, Remote Peer Port and
Protocol fields for the flow learnt from PCEF or AF.
o PCRF learns the internal IP address and internal port number in
the QUERY response. This correlation is used by the PCRF to
retrieve the UE's policy to be passed to the PCEF.
Figure 6 shows an example of the use of QUERY OpCode. In this
example, an HTTP connection is initiated by the UA (192.0.2.1:33041)
to an HTTP server (198.51.100.2:80). The NAT assigns 198.51.100.1/
23432 as external IP Address/Port. PCRF learns Internal IP Address
and Port associated with the NAT mapping using PCP QUERY request/
response.
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
+------+ +-----+ +------+ +------+
| UE | | NAT | | PCRF | | AF |
+------+ +-----+ +------+ +------+
192.0.2.1 | 198.51.100.2
| | |
|Src IP Address:Port | |
| = 192.0.2.1:33041 | |
|Dst IP Address:Port | |
| = 198.51.100.2:80 | |
|===================>|=====================================>|
| |Src IP Address:Port=198.51.100.1:23432|
| |Dst IP Address:Port=198.51.100.2:80 |
| | |
| {PCRF learns 5-tuple |
| from AF or PCEF} |
| | | |
| | PCP QUERY Request | |
| | External IP:Port = | |
| | 198.51.100.1:23432 | |
| | Remote Peer IP:Port = | |
| | 198.51.100.2:80 | |
| | Protocol = TCP | |
| |<=======================| |
| | PCP QUERY Response | |
| | External IP:Port = | |
| | 198.51.100.1:23432 | |
| | Internal IP:Port = | |
| | 192.0.2.1:33041 | |
| | Protocol = TCP | |
| | Lifetime = 1000 sec | |
| |=======================>| |
| | | |
| Generate Policy Rules
Figure 6: Usage Example
5. QUERY OpCode
This section defines a new PCP OpCode which can be used to query PCP-
aware NAT to retrieve the Internal IP Address and Internal Port of a
given mapping.
The PCP Server MUST provide a configuration option to allow
administrators to enable/disable QUERY OpCode.
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
5.1. QUERY Request Format
The following diagram shows the format of the OpCode-specific
information in a request for the QUERY OpCode.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| QUERY Nonce (96 bits) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| External Port | Remote Peer Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| External IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Remote Peer IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Query Opcode Request
These fields are described below:
Requested Lifetime (in common header): This field is positioned to
0.
Mapping Nonce: Random value chosen by the PCP client. See Section
12.2 of [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
Protocol: Upper-layer protocol associated with this OpCode. Values
are taken from the IANA protocol registry [proto_numbers]. For
example, this field contains 6 (TCP) if the OpCode is describing a
TCP mapping. Protocol MUST NOT be zero.
Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
MUST be ignored on reception.
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
External Port: External port allocated by NAT for the flow.
External Port MUST NOT be zero
Remote Peer Port: Remote peer's port for the flow. Remote Peer Port
MUST NOT be zero
External IP address: External IP address allocated by NAT for the
flow. External IP address MUST NOT be zero
Remote Peer IP address: Remote peer IP address for the flow. Remote
Peer IP address MUST NOT be zero.
5.2. QUERY Response Format
The following diagram shows the format of OpCode-specific information
in a response packet for the QUERY OpCode:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| QUERY Nonce (96 bits) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Reserved (24 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| External Port | Internal Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| External IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Internal IP Address (128 bits) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Query Opcode Response
These fields are described below:
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
Lifetime (in common header): On a success response, this indicates
the lifetime for this mapping, in seconds. On an error response,
this indicates that mapping does not exist.
Mapping Nonce: Copied from the request.
Protocol: Copied from the request.
Reserved: 24 reserved bits, MUST be set to 0.
External Port: Copied from the request.
External IP address: Copied from the request.
Internal Port: Internal Port as assigned by the PCP-controlled
device.
Internal IP address: Internal IP address as assigned by the PCP-
controlled controlled device.
5.3. Generating a QUERY Request
This section describes the operation of a PCP client when sending
requests with the QUERY OpCode.
PCP QUERY request is used by an authorized third party PCP client
that is only aware of the 5-tuple {External IP address and Port,
Protocol, Remote Peer IP address and Port} and needs to learn the
Internal IP address and Port associated with the NAT mapping. The
request MUST contain non-zero values of Protocol, External Port,
Remote Peer Port, External IP address and Remote Peer IP address.
The Requested Lifetime MUST be set to zero.
5.4. Processing a QUERY Request
This section describes the operation of a PCP server when processing
a QUERY request.
For EIM/EIF port-mapping NAT, the processing of the QUERY request is
as follows:
o If any of the values Protocol, External Port and External IP
address are equal to zero, the request is invalid and the PCP
server MUST return a MALFORMED_REQUEST to the client.
o If Protocol, External Port and External IP address do not match
any existing implicit dynamic mapping, then the PCP server MUST
return NONEXIST_MAP error response (also needed in
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
[I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure]).
o If Protocol, External Port and External IP address match an
existing implicit dynamic mapping, then the PCP server MUST build
a QUERY response with the Internal IP address, Internal Port and
the lifetime associated with the mapping.
For EDM port-mapping NAT, the processing of the QUERY request is as
follows:
o If any of the values Protocol, External Port, Remote Peer Port,
External IP address and Remote Peer IP Address are zero, the
request is invalid and PCP server MUST return a MALFORMED_REQUEST
to the client.
o If Protocol, External Port, Remote Peer Port, External IP address
and Remote Peer IP address do not match any existing implicit
dynamic mapping then the PCP server MUST return NONEXIST_MAP error
response (also needed in [I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure]).
o If Protocol, External Port, Remote Peer Port, External IP address
and Remote Peer IP address matches an existing implicit dynamic
mapping then the PCP server builds a QUERY response with the
Internal IP address, Internal Port and the lifetime associated
with the mapping.
PCP QUERY requests received on the Internet-facing interface MUST be
silently drooped.
In DS-Lite context [RFC6333], the Internal IP address returned in the
QUERY response MUST be the IPv6 address of the remote tunnel endpoint
and not the internal private IPv4 address.
5.5. Processing a QUERY Response
After performing common PCP response processing by the PCP Client,
the response is further matched with a previously-sent QUERY request
by comparing the QUERY Nonce, External IP Address, External Port and
Protocol. On a SUCCESS response, the PCP Client can use the Internal
IP Address and Port in the QUERY response as needed.
6. Applicability Scope of QUERY OpCode
The PCP-Reveal solution is designed for needs within one single
administrative domain (i.e., the PCP Client and PCP Server are
managed by the same entity). Considerations related to the
activation of the PCP-Reveal solution in an inter-domain context is
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
out of scope of this document.
7. IANA Considerations
Authors of this document request the following OpCode:
o QUERY
The following error code is requested:
o NONEXIST_MAP
8. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] are to be
taken into account. In particular, QUERY OpCode MUST NOT be
implemented or used unless the network on which the PCP QUERY
messages are to be sent is fully trusted. For example if Access
Control Lists (ACLs) are installed on the PCP server, and the network
between the PCP client and the PCP server, so those ACLs allow only
communications from a trusted PCP client to the PCP server.
QUERY OpCode may be generated by non legitimate PCP Clients; the PCP
Server MUST enforce some policies such as rate limit QUERY messages.
QUERY requests received from non legitimate PCP Clients are silently
dropped.
PCP authentication [I-D.ietf-pcp-authentication] MAY be used.
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-29 (work in progress), November 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[proto_numbers]
IANA, "Protocol Numbers", 2010, <http://www.iana.org/
assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xml>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios]
Boucadair, M., Binet, D., Durel, S., and T. Reddy,
"HOST_ID: Use Cases",
draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-01 (work
in progress), October 2012.
[I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure]
Boucadair, M., Dupont, F., and R. Penno, "Port Control
Protocol (PCP) Failure Scenarios",
draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-04 (work in progress),
August 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-04 (work in
progress), August 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pcp-authentication]
Wasserman, M., Hartman, S., and D. Zhang, "Port Control
Protocol (PCP) Authentication Mechanism",
draft-ietf-pcp-authentication-01 (work in progress),
October 2012.
[RFC2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D., and R. Guerin, "A Framework
for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753,
January 2000.
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6342] Koodli, R., "Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6
Deployment", RFC 6342, August 2011.
[RFC6346] Bush, R., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the
IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346, August 2011.
[TS.23203]
3GPP, "Policy and charging control architecture",
September 2012.
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PCP to Reveal a Host behind NAT November 2012
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes, 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Tirumaleswar Reddy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: tireddy@cisco.com
Prashanth Patil
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
Sarjapur Marthalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: praspati@cisco.com
Dan Wing
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires June 1, 2013 [Page 16]