Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications
draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2011-11-15 (latest revision 2011-10-31)
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html
IETF conflict review conflict-review-donley-nat444-impacts
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          C. Donley
Internet-Draft                                                 CableLabs
Intended status: Informational                                 L. Howard
Expires: May 18, 2012                                  Time Warner Cable
                                                            V. Kuarsingh
                                                   Rogers Communications
                                                                 J. Berg
                                                               CableLabs
                                                                J. Doshi
                                                  University of Colorado
                                                       November 15, 2011

   Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications
                     draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03

Abstract

   NAT444 is an IPv4 extension technology being considered by Service
   Providers to continue offering IPv4 service to customers while
   transitioning to IPv6.  This technology adds an extra Carrier-Grade
   NAT ("CGN") in the Service Provider network, often resulting in two
   NATs.  CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers Communications
   independently tested the impacts of NAT444 on many popular Internet
   services using a variety of test scenarios, network topologies, and
   vendor equipment.  This document identifies areas where adding a
   second layer of NAT disrupts the communication channel for common
   Internet applications.  This document was updated to also include
   Dual-Stack Lite impacts.

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 May 18, 2012.

Copyright Notice

Donley, et al.            Expires May 18, 2012                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                November 2011

   Copyright (c) 2011 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Testing Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.1.  Case1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single
               Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.2.  Case2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single
               Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.3.  Case3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single
               Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.4.  Case4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service
               Providers Cross ISP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.2.  General Test Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.3.  Test Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.4.  Test Scenarios Executed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.5.  General Test Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.  Observed CGN Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.1.  Dropped Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.2.  Degraded Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.3.  Improvements since 2010  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.4.  Additional CGN Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.  2011 Summary of Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.1.  NAT444 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.2.  DS-Lite  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Show full document text