%% You should probably cite rfc7289 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-02, number = {draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-02}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment/02/}, author = {Victor Kuarsingh and John Cianfarani}, title = {{CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs}}, pagetotal = 18, year = 2013, month = feb, day = 18, abstract = {This document specifies a framework to integrate a Network Address Translation layer into an operator's network to function as a Carrier Grade NAT (also known as CGN or Large Scale NAT). The CGN infrastructure will often form a NAT444 environment as the subscriber home network will likely also maintain a subscriber side NAT function. Exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool is a major driver compelling some operators to implement CGN. Although operators may wish to deploy IPv6 to strategically overcome IPv4 exhaustion, near term needs may not be satisfied with an IPv6 deployment alone. This document provides a practical integration model which allows the CGN platform to be integrated into the network meeting the connectivity needs of the subscriber while being mindful of not disrupting existing services and meeting the technical challenges that CGN brings. The model included in this document utilizes BGP/MPLS IP VPNs which allow for virtual routing separation helping ease the CGNs impact on the network. This document does not intend to defend the merits of CGN.}, }