464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation
draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (v6ops WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Masataka Mawatari , Masanobu Kawashima , Cameron Byrne | ||
| Last updated | 2012-02-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-mawatari-v6ops-464xlat | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml pdf htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-00
Internet Engineering Task Force M. Mawatari
Internet-Draft Japan Internet Exchange Co.,Ltd.
Intended status: Informational M. Kawashima
Expires: August 18, 2012 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
C. Byrne
T-Mobile USA
February 15, 2012
464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation
draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-00
Abstract
This document describes an architecture (464XLAT) for providing IPv4
connectivity across an IPv6-only network by combining existing and
well-known stateful protocol translation RFC 6146 in the core and
stateless protocol translation RFC 6145 at the edge. 464XLAT is a
simple and scalable technique to quickly deploy IPv4 access service
to mobile and wireline IPv6-only edge networks without encapsulation.
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 August 18, 2012.
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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Motivation and Uniqueness of 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Wireline Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Wireline Network Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. IPv6 Address Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation Chart . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. Traffic Treatment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. DNS Proxy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.5. IPv6 Prefix Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.6. IPv6 Fragment Header Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.7. CLAT in a Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.8. CLAT to CLAT communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
1. Introduction
The IANA unallocated IPv4 address pool was exhausted on February 3,
2011. Each RIR's unallocated IPv4 address pool will exhaust in the
near future. It will be difficult for many networks to assign IPv4
addresses to end users, despite substantial IP connectivity growth
required for mobile devices, smart-grid, and cloud nodes.
This document describes an IPv4 over IPv6 solution as one of the
techniques for IPv4 service extension and encouragement of IPv6
deployment.
The 464XLAT architecture described in this document uses IPv4/IPv6
translation standardized in [RFC6145] and [RFC6146]. It does not
require DNS64 [RFC6147], but it may use DNS64 to enable single
stateful translation [RFC6146] instead of 464XLAT double translation
where possible. It is also possible to provide single IPv4/IPv6
translation service, which will be needed in the future case of IPv6-
only servers and peers to be reached from legacy IPv4-only hosts.
The 464XLAT architecture encourages IPv6 transition by making IPv4
services reachable across IPv6-only networks and providing IPv6 and
IPv4 connectivity to single-stack IPv4 or IPv6 servers and peers.
Running a single-stack IPv6-only network has several operational
benefits in terms of increasing scalability and decreasing
operational complexity. Unfortunately, there are important cases
where IPv6-only networks fail to meet subscriber expectations, as
described in [I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience]. The 464XLAT overcomes
the issues described in [I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience] to provide
subscribers the full dual-stack functionality while providing the
network operator the benefits of a simple yet highly scalable single-
stack IPv6 network.
2. 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 [RFC2119].
3. Terminology
PLAT: PLAT is Provider side translator(XLAT) that complies with
[RFC6146]. It translates N:1 global IPv6 packets to global
IPv4 packets, and vice versa.
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
CLAT: CLAT is Customer side translator(XLAT) that complies with
[RFC6145]. It algorithmically translates 1:1 private IPv4
packets to global IPv6 packets, and vice versa. The CLAT
function is applicable to a router or an end-node such as a
mobile phone. CLAT SHOULD perform router function to
facilitate packets forwarding through the stateless
translation even if it is an end-node. In addition to
stateless translation, the CLAT as a common home router or 3G
router is expected to perform gateway functions such as DHCP
server and DNS proxy for local clients.
UE: The 3GPP term for user equipment. The most common type of UE
is a mobile phone.
PDP: A Packet Data Protocol (PDP) Context is the equivalent of a
virtual connection between the host and a gateway.
4. Motivation and Uniqueness of 464XLAT
1. Minimal IPv4 resource requirements
464XLAT is the most efficient use of scarce IPv4 addresses for
networks that have fast growing edges. The primary motivation
for deploying IPv6 is the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses and the
risk that exhaustion poses to future internet growth. 464XLAT
directly takes on the challenge of IPv4 address exhaustion by
providing efficient stateful IPv4 address sharing at the PLAT and
decoupling the edge network growth from the availability of
scarce IPv4 addresses.
464XLAT has low barriers to entry since only a small amount of
IPv4 addresses are needed to support the stateful translation
[RFC6146] function in the PLAT.
Given that network operators are deploying IPv6 because IPv4
resources are scarce, solutions that require dual-stack (no IPv4
multiplexing) or stateless address sharing (bounded static
address multiplexing) are simply not IPv4-efficient enough to
solve the two-pronged challenge of increasing IPv4 address
scarcity and continued exponential network edge growth.
2. No new protocols required
464XLAT can be deployed today, it uses existing RFCs ([RFC6145]
and [RFC6146]), and there exists implementations for both
wireline network (CLAT in the home router) and wireless 3GPP
network (CLAT in the UE). The ability to quickly deploy 464XLAT
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
is a critical feature given the urgency of IPv4 exhaustion and
brisk pace of internet growth.
3. Cost-effective transition to IPv6
When combined with DNS64 [RFC6147], the 464XLAT architecture only
requires double translation in the case of IPv4-referrals or
IPv4-only socket calls. Consequently, the network traffic in the
ISP backbone network is predominately IPv6 end-to-end or single
translation. This is especially cost-effective in wireless 3GPP
GSM and UMTS networks that would otherwise require two separate
PDP connections to support IPv4 and IPv6.
While translation on the CLAT is not always used, the CLAT
function is crucial for enabling the IPv4-only applications and
providing IP address family service parity to the end-users. All
IPv6-native flows pass end-to-end without any translation. This
is a beneficial solution for end-users, content providers, and
network operators that scale best with end-to-end IPv6
communication.
In summary, the 464XLAT architecture works today for service
providers that require large-scale strategic IPv6 deployments to
overcome the challenges of IPv4 address scarcity. Unlike other
transition architectures associated with tunneling or
[I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port], 464XLAT properly assumes
that IPv4 is scarce and IPv6 must work with today's existing systems
as much as possible. In the case of tunneling, the tunneling
solutions like Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] are known to break existing
network based deep packet inspection solutions like 3GPP standardized
Policy and Charging Control (PCC). 464XLAT does not require much IPv4
address space to enable the stateful translation [RFC6146] function
in the PLAT while providing global IPv4 and IPv6 reachability to
IPv6-only wireline and wireless subscribers.
5. Network Architecture
464XLAT architecture is shown in the following figure.
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
5.1. Wireline Network Architecture
----
| v6 |
----
|
---- | .---+---. .------.
| v6 |-----+ / \ / \
---- | ------ / IPv6 \ ------ / IPv4 \
+---| CLAT |---+ Internet +---| PLAT |---+ Internet |
------- | ------ \ / ------ \ /
|v4p/v6 |--+ `---------' `----+----'
------- | |
----- | -----
| v4p |----+ | v4g |
----- | -----
<- v4p -> XLAT <--------- v6 --------> XLAT <- v4g ->
v6 : Global IPv6
v4p : Private IPv4
v4g : Global IPv4
Figure 1: Wireline Network Topology
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
5.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Architecture
----
| v6 |
----
|
.---+---.
/ \
/ IPv6 \
| Internet |
\ /
UE / Mobile Phone `---------'
+----------------------+ |
| ---- | | .---+---. .------.
| | v6 |----+ | / \ / \
| ---- | ------| / IPv6 PDP \ ------ / IPv4 \
| +---| CLAT |---+ Mobile Core +---| PLAT |--+ Internet |
| | ------| \ GGSN / ------ \ /
| | | \ ' `----+---'
| ------ | | `-------' |
| | v4p |---+ | -----
| ------ | | | v4g |
+----------------------+ -----
<- v4p -> XLAT <--------- v6 --------> XLAT <- v4g ->
v6 : Global IPv6
v4p : Private IPv4
v4g : Global IPv4
Figure 2: Wireless 3GPP Network Topology
6. Applicability
6.1. Wireline Network Applicability
When an ISP has IPv6 access network infrastructure and 464XLAT, the
ISP can provide IPv4 service to end users across an IPv6 access
network. The result is that edge network growth is no longer tightly
coupled to the availability of scarce IPv4 addresses.
If the IXP or another provider operates the PLAT, the ISP is only
required to deploy an IPv6 access network. All ISPs do not need IPv4
access networks. They can migrate their access network to a simple
and highly scalable IPv6-only environment. Incidentally, Japan
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
Internet Exchange(JPIX) is providing 464XLAT trial service since July
2010.
6.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Applicability
The vast majority of mobile wireless networks are compliant to Pre-
Release 9 3GPP standards. In Pre-Release 9 3GPP networks, GSM and
UMTS networks must signal and support both IPv4 and IPv6 PDP
attachments to access IPv4 and IPv6 network destinations. Since
there are 2 PDPs required to support 2 address families, this is
double the number of PDPs required to support the status quo of 1
address family, which is IPv4. Doubling the PDP count to support
IPv4 and IPv6 is generally not operationally viable since a large
portion of the network cost is derived from the number of PDP
attachments, both in terms of licenses from the network hardware
vendors and in terms of actual hardware resources required to support
and maintain the PDP signaling and mobility events. Doubling the
number of PDP attachments has been one of the major barriers to
introducing IPv6 in mobile networks. Dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 simply
costs more from the network provider perspective and does not result
in any new revenues. In 3GPP Release 9 and forward, 2 PDPs are no
longer required but the scarcity of IPv4 addresses remain.
Now that both global and private IPv4 addresses are scarce to the
extent that it is a substantial business risk and limiting growth in
many areas, the mobile network providers must support IPv6 to solve
the IP address scarcity issue. It is not feasible to simply turn on
additional IPv6 PDP network attachments since that does not solve the
near-term IPv4 scarcity issues and it increases cost in most cases.
The most logical path forward is to replace IPv4 with IPv6 and
replace the common NAT44 with stateful translation [RFC6146] and
DNS64 [RFC6147]. Extensive live network testing with hundreds of
friendly-users has shown that IPv6-only network attachments for
mobile devices supports over 85% of the common applications on the
Android mobile operating systems. The remaining 15% of applications
do not work because the application requires an IPv4 socket or the
application does an IPv4-referral. These findings are consistent
with the mobile IPv6-only user experience in
[I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience].
464XLAT in combination with stateful translation [RFC6146] and DNS64
[RFC6147] allows 85% of the Android applications to continue to work
with single translation or native IPv6 access. For the remaining 15%
of applications that require IPv4 connectivity, the CLAT function on
the UE provides a private IPv4 address and IPv4 default-route on the
host for the applications to reference and bind to. Connections
sourced from the IPv4 interface are immediately routed to the CLAT
function and passed to the IPv6-only mobile network, destine to the
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
PLAT. In summary, the UE has the CLAT function that does a stateless
translation [RFC6145], but only when required. The mobile network
has a PLAT that does stateful translation [RFC6146].
7. Implementation Considerations
7.1. IPv6 Address Format
IPv6 address format in 464XLAT is presented in the following format.
+-----------------------------------------------+---------------+
| XLAT prefix(96) | IPv4(32) |
+-----------------------------------------------+---------------+
IPv6 Address Format for 464XLAT
Source address and destination address have IPv4 address embedded in
the low-order 32 bits of the IPv6 address. The format is defined in
Section 2.2 of [RFC6052]. However, 464XLAT does not use the Well-
Known IPv6 Prefix "64:ff9b::/96".
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
7.2. IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation Chart
Source IPv4 address
+----------------------------+
| Global IPv4 (32bit) |
| assigned to IPv4 pool@PLAT |
+--------+ +----------------------------+
| IPv4 | Destination IPv4 address
| server | +----------------------------+
+--------+ | Global IPv4 (32bit) |
^ | assigned to IPv4 server |
| +----------------------------+
+--------+
| PLAT | Stateful XLATE(IPv4:IPv6=1:n)
+--------+
^
|
Source IPv6 address (IPv6 cloud)
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| XLAT prefix for source (96bit) | Private IPv4 (32bit) |
| assigned to each consumer of ISP | assigned to IPv4 client |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
Destination IPv6 address
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| XLAT prefix for destination (96bit) | Global IPv4 (32bit) |
| assigned to PLAT | assigned to IPv4 server |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
(IPv6 cloud)
^
|
+--------+
| CLAT | Stateless XLATE(IPv4:IPv6=1:1)
+--------+
^ Source IPv4 address
| +----------------------------+
+--------+ | Private IPv4 (32bit) |
| IPv4 | | assigned to IPv4 client |
| client | +----------------------------+
+--------+ Destination IPv4 address
+----------------------------+
| Global IPv4 (32bit) |
| assigned to IPv4 server |
+----------------------------+
IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation Chart
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
7.3. Traffic Treatment Scenarios
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| Server | Application | Traffic Treatment | Location of |
| | and Host | | Translation |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| IPv6 | IPv6 | End-to-end IPv6 | None |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| IPv4 | IPv6 | Stateful Translation | PLAT |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| IPv4 | IPv4 | 464XLAT | PLAT/CLAT |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| IPv6 | IPv4 | Stateless Translation | CLAT |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
Traffic Treatment Scenarios
The above chart shows most common traffic types and traffic
treatment.
7.4. DNS Proxy Implementation
The case of an IPv4-only node behind CLAT querying an IPv4 DNS server
is undesirable since it requires both stateful and stateless
translation for each DNS lookup. The CLAT SHOULD set itself as the
DNS server via DHCP or other means and proxy DNS queries for IPv4 and
IPv6 clients. Using the CLAT enabled home router or UE as a DNS
proxy is a normal consume gateway function and simplifies the traffic
flow so that only IPv6 native queries are made across the access
network. The CLAT SHOULD allow for a client to query any DNS server
of its choice and bypass the proxy.
7.5. IPv6 Prefix Handling
In the best case, the CLAT will have a dedicated /64 via DHCPv6 or
other means to source and receive IPv6 packets associated with the
[RFC6145] stateless translation of IPv4 packets to the local clients.
In cases where the access network does not allow for a dedicated
translation prefix, the CLAT SHOULD take ownership of the lowest /96
from an attached interface's /64 to source and receive translation
traffic. Establishing ownership of the /96 requires that the CLAT
SHOULD perform NDP so that no other nodes on the /64 may use the
lowest /96. This will be the case for 3G phones on IPv6-only
networks that do not yet support DHCPv6 prefix delegation or the case
for some wireline environments that can only receive RA.
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
The CLAT may discover the Pref64::/n of the PLAT via some method such
as DHCPv6 option, TR-069, or
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic].
7.6. IPv6 Fragment Header Consideration
In the 464XLAT environment, the PLAT and CLAT SHOULD include an IPv6
Fragment Header, since IPv4 host does not set the DF bit. However,
the IPv6 Fragment Header has been shown to cause operational
difficulties in practice due to limited firewall fragmentation
support, etc. Therefore, the PLAT and CLAT may provide a
configuration function that allows the PLAT and CLAT not to include
the Fragment Header for the non-fragmented IPv6 packets. The
function provide a configuration function to adjust minimum IPv6 MTU,
or can configure whether it include the Fragment Header. At any
rate, both behaviors SHOULD match.
7.7. CLAT in a Gateway
The CLAT is a stateless translation feature which can be implemented
in a common home router or mobile phone that has a mobile router
feature. The router with CLAT function SHOULD provide common router
services such as DHCP of [RFC1918] addresses, DHCPv6, and DNS
service. The router SHOULD set itself as the DNS server advertised
via DHCP or other means to the clients so that it may implement the
DNS proxy function to avoid double translation of DNS request.
7.8. CLAT to CLAT communications
While CLAT to CLAT IPv4 communication may work when the client IPv4
subnets do not overlap, this traffic flow is out of scope. 464XLAT is
a hub and spoke architecture focused on enabling IPv4-only services
over IPv6-only access networks.
8. Deployment Considerations
Even if the Internet access provider for consumers is different from
the PLAT provider (another Internet access provider or Internet
exchange provider, etc.), it can implement traffic engineering
independently from the PLAT provider. Detailed reasons are below:
1. The Internet access provider for consumers can figure out IPv4
source address and IPv4 destination address from translated IPv6
packet header, so it can implement traffic engineering based on
IPv4 source address and IPv4 destination address (e.g. traffic
monitoring for each IPv4 destination address, packet filtering
for each IPv4 destination address, etc.). The tunneling methods
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
do not have such a advantage, without any deep packet inspection
for processing the inner IPv4 packet of the tunnel packet.
2. If the Internet access provider for consumers can assign IPv6
prefix greater than /64 for each subscriber, this 464XLAT
architecture can separate IPv6 prefix for native IPv6 packets and
XLAT prefix for IPv4/IPv6 translation packets. Accordingly, it
can identify the type of packets ("native IPv6 packets" and
"IPv4/IPv6 translation packets"), and implement traffic
engineering based on IPv6 prefix.
This 464XLAT architecture has two capabilities. One is a IPv4 ->
IPv6 -> IPv4 translation for sharing global IPv4 addresses, another
is a IPv4 -> IPv6 translation for reaching IPv6-only servers from
IPv4-only clients that can not support IPv6. IPv4-only clients must
be support through the long period of global transition to IPv6.
9. Security Considerations
To implement a PLAT, see security considerations presented in Section
5 of [RFC6146].
To implement a CLAT, see security considerations presented in Section
7 of [RFC6145]. The CLAT MAY comply with [RFC6092].
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
11. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank JPIX NOC members, JPIX 464XLAT trial
service members, Seiichi Kawamura, Dan Drown, Brian Carpenter, Rajiv
Asati, Washam Fan and Behcet Sarikaya for their helpful comments. We
also would like to thank Fred Baker and Joel Jaeggli for their
support.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience]
Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only
Network", draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-05 (work in
progress), February 2012.
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic]
Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of a
Network-Specific NAT64 Prefix using a Well-Known Name",
draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-05 (work in
progress), January 2012.
[I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port]
Troan, O., Matsushima, S., Murakami, T., Li, X., and C.
Bao, "Mapping of Address and Port (MAP)",
draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 (work in
progress), January 2012.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
January 2011.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
April 2011.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT February 2012
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T.,
Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, January 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Masataka Mawatari
Japan Internet Exchange Co.,Ltd.
KDDI Otemachi Building 19F, 1-8-1 Otemachi,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0004
JAPAN
Phone: +81 3 3243 9579
Email: mawatari@jpix.ad.jp
Masanobu Kawashima
NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
800, Shimomata
Kakegawa-shi, Shizuoka 436-8501
JAPAN
Phone: +81 537 23 9655
Email: kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com
Cameron Byrne
T-Mobile USA
Bellevue, Washington 98006
USA
Email: cameron.byrne@t-mobile.com
Mawatari, et al. Expires August 18, 2012 [Page 15]