datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments
draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-07

Document type: Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Document stream: ISE
Last updated: 2014-01-27 (latest revision 2014-01-13)
Intended RFC status: Informational
Other versions: plain text, xml, pdf, html

ISE State: Finding Reviewers
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: I-D Exists
Responsible AD: (None)
Send notices to: No addresses provided

Network Working Group                                          C. Donley
Internet-Draft                                                 CableLabs
Intended status: Informational                             C. Grundemann
Expires: July 17, 2014                                  Internet Society
                                                              V. Sarawat
                                                           K. Sundaresan
                                                               CableLabs
                                                              O. Vautrin
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                        January 13, 2014

  Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce Logging in Carrier Grade NAT
                              Deployments
                draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-07

Abstract

   In some instances, Service Providers have a legal logging requirement
   to be able to map a subscriber's inside address with the address used
   on the public Internet (e.g. for abuse response).  Unfortunately,
   many Carrier Grade NAT logging solutions require active logging of
   dynamic translations.  Carrier Grade NAT port assignments are often
   per-connection, but could optionally use port ranges.  Research
   indicates that per-connection logging is not scalable in many
   residential broadband services.  This document suggests a way to
   manage Carrier Grade NAT translations in such a way as to
   significantly reduce the amount of logging required while providing
   traceability for abuse response.  While the authors acknowledge that
   IPv6 is a preferred solution, Carrier Grade NAT is a reality in many
   networks, and is needed in situations where either customer equipment
   or Internet content only supports IPv4; this approach should in no
   way slow the deployment of IPv6.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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

Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014

   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 July 17, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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
   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.  Deterministic Port Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  IPv4 Port Utilization Efficiency  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Planning & Dimensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Deterministic CGN Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Additional Logging Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.  Failover Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Impact on the IPv6 Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

[include full document text]