%% You should probably cite draft-chan-tsvwg-eipf-cgnat-02 instead of this revision.
@techreport{chan-tsvwg-eipf-cgnat-00,
    number =    {draft-chan-tsvwg-eipf-cgnat-00},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chan-tsvwg-eipf-cgnat/00/},
    author =    {Louis Chan},
    title =     {{Enhanced Port Forwarding functions with CGNAT}},
    pagetotal = 7,
    year =      2022,
    month =     feb,
    day =       22,
    abstract =  {There is a need for peer-to-peer (P2P) communication under the use of CGNAT in service providers. With the combination of home gateway, this becomes NAT444. In RFC5128, methods of using UDP hole punching solves the problem partially when EIM (Endpoint-Independent Mapping) is supported in NAT device in the path, and there exists a common rendezvous server. The success rate of UDP hole punching is high, but not TCP hole punching in practical world. Also, the P2P solution requires a common server in the public internet to exchange the IP and port information. In this draft, a method is described to achieve incoming TCP or UDP session without a common rendezvous server in NAT444 situation.},
}