Skip to main content

An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 6264.
Authors Sheng Jiang , Brian E. Carpenter , Dayong Guo
Last updated 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2011-01-04)
Replaces draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state RFC 6264 (Informational)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Ron Bonica
IESG note Joel Jaeggli (, v6ops co-chair is the document shepherd.
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         S. Jiang 
Internet Draft                                                  D. Guo 
Intended status: Informational            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 
Expires: July 4, 2011                                     B. Carpenter 
                                                University of Auckland
                                                       January 4, 2011 
       An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition 

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 

   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 4, 2011. 

Copyright Notice 

   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 
   ( 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. 



   Global IPv6 deployment was slower than originally expected. As IPv4 
   address exhaustion approaches, IPv4 to IPv6 transition issues become 
   more critical and less tractable. Host-based transition mechanisms 
Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 1] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

   used in dual stack environments cannot meet all transition 
   requirements. Most end users are not sufficiently expert to configure 
   or maintain host-based transition mechanisms. Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) 
   devices with integrated transition mechanisms can reduce the 
   operational changes required during the IPv4 to IPv6 migration or 
   coexistence period. 

   This document proposes an incremental CGN approach for IPv6 
   transition. It can provide IPv6 access services for IPv6 hosts and 
   IPv4 access services for IPv4 hosts, while leaving much of a legacy 
   ISP network unchanged during the initial stage of IPv4 to IPv6 
   migration. Unlike CGN alone, incremental CGN also supports and 
   encourages smooth transition towards dual-stack or IPv6-only ISP 
   networks. An integrated configurable CGN device and an adaptive Home 
   Gateway (HG) device are described. Both are re-usable during 
   different transition phases, avoiding multiple upgrades. This enables 
   IPv6 migration to be incrementally achieved according to real user 


Table of Contents 

   1. Introduction.................................................3 
   2. An Incremental CGN Approach..................................4 
      2.1. Incremental CGN Approach Overview.......................4 
      2.2. Choice of tunneling technology..........................5 
      2.3. Behavior of Dual-stack Home Gateway.....................6 
      2.4. Behavior of Dual-stack CGN..............................7 
      2.5. Impact for existing hosts and unchanged networks........7 
      2.6. IPv4/IPv6 intercommunication............................7 
      2.7. Discussion..............................................8 
   3. Smooth transition towards IPv6 infrastructure................9 
   4. Security Considerations.....................................10 
   5. IANA Considerations.........................................11 
   6. Acknowledgements............................................11 
   7. Change Log [RFC Editor please remove].......................11 
   8. References..................................................12 
      8.1. Normative References...................................12 
      8.2. Informative References.................................12 
   Author's Addresses.............................................15 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 2] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

1. Introduction 

   Global IPv6 deployment did not happen as was forecast 10 years ago. 
   Network providers were hesitant to make the first move while IPv4 was 
   and is still working well. However, IPv4 address exhaustion is 
   imminent. The dynamically-updated IPv4 Address Report [IPUSAGE] has 
   analyzed this issue. It predicts early 2011 for IANA unallocated 
   address pool exhaustion and middle 2012 for RIR unallocated address 
   pool exhaustion. Based on this fact, the Internet industry appears to 
   have reached consensus that global IPv6 deployment is inevitable and 
   has to be done expeditiously. 

   IPv4 to IPv6 transition issues therefore become more critical and 
   complicated for the approaching global IPv6 deployment. Host-based 
   transition mechanisms alone are not able to meet the requirements in 
   all cases. Therefore, network-based supporting functions and/or new 
   transition mechanisms with simple user-side operation are needed. 

   Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) [I-D.nishitani-cgn], also called NAT444 CGN 
   or Large Scale NAT, compounds IPv4 operational problems when used 
   alone, but does nothing to encourage IPv4 to IPv6 transition. 
   Deployment of NAT444 CGN allows ISPs to delay the transition, and 
   therefore causes double transition costs (once to add CGN, and again 
   to support IPv6). 

   CGN deployments that integrate multiple transition mechanisms can 
   simplify the operation of end user services during the IPv4 to IPv6 
   migration and coexistence periods. CGNs are deployed on the network 
   side and managed/maintained by professionals. On the user side, new 
   Home Gateway (HG) devices may be needed too. They may be provided by 
   network providers, depending on the specific business model. Dual-
   stack lite [I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite], also called DS-Lite, 
   is a CGN-based solution that supports transition, but it requires the 
   ISP to upgrade its network to IPv6 immediately. Many ISPs hesitate to 
   do this as the first step. Theoretically, DS-Lite can be used with 
   double encapsulation (IPv4-in-IPv6-in-IPv4) but this seems even less 
   likely to be accepted by an ISP and is not discussed in this  

   This document proposes an incremental CGN approach for IPv6 
   transition. It does not define any new protocols or mechanisms, but 
   describes how to combine existing proposals in an incremental 
   deployment. The approach is similar to DS-Lite, but the other way 
   around. It mainly combines v4-v4 NAT with v6-over-v4 tunneling 
   functions. It can provide IPv6 access services for IPv6-enabled hosts 
   and IPv4 access services for IPv4 hosts, while leaving most of legacy 
Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 3] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

   IPv4 ISP networks unchanged. The deployment of this technology does 
   not affect legacy IPv4 hosts with global IPv4 addresses at all. It is 
   suitable for the initial stage of IPv4 to IPv6 migration. It also 
   supports transition towards dual-stack or IPv6-only ISP networks. 

   A smooth transition mechanism is also described in this document. It 
   introduces an integrated configurable CGN device and an adaptive HG 
   device. Both CGN and HG are re-usable devices during different 
   transition periods, so they do not need to be replaced as the 
   transition proceeds. This enables IPv6 migration to be incrementally 
   achieved according to the real user requirements. 

2. An Incremental CGN Approach 

   Today, most consumers primarily use IPv4. Network providers are 
   starting to provide IPv6 access services for end users. At the 
   initial stage of IPv4 to IPv6 migration, IPv4 connectivity and 
   traffic would continue to represent the majority of traffic for most 
   ISP networks. ISPs would like to minimize the changes to their IPv4 
   networks. Switching the whole ISP network into IPv6-only would be 
   considered as a radical strategy. Switching the whole ISP network to 
   dual stack is less radical, but introduces operational costs and 
   complications. Although some ISPs have successfully deployed dual 
   stack networks, others prefer not to do this as their first step in 
   IPv6. However, they currently face two urgent pressures - to 
   compensate for an immediate shortage of IPv4 addresses by deploying 
   some method of address sharing, and to prepare actively for the use 
   of deployment of IPv6 address space and services. ISPs facing only 
   one pressure out of two could adopt either CGN (for shortage of IPv4 
   addresses) or 6rd (to provide IPv6 connectivity services). The 
   approach described in this draft is intended to address both of these 
   pressures at the same time by combining v4-v4 CGN with v6-over-v4 
   tunneling technologies. 

2.1. Incremental CGN Approach Overview 

   The incremental CGN approach we propose is illustrated as the 
   following figure. 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 4] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

                                   |IPv6 Internet| 
     +-----+   +--+       |  IPv4 ISP  +--+--+       |   +--------+ 
     |v4/v6|---|DS|=======+============| CGN |-------+---|  IPv4  | 
     |Host |   |HG|       |   Network  +-----+   |   |   |Internet| 
     +-----+   +--+       +----------------------+---+   +--------+ 
                  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _          | 
                ()_6_over_4_ _t_u_n_n_e_l_()  +---------------------+ 
                                              | Existing IPv4 hosts | 

    Figure 1: incremental CGN approach with IPv4 ISP network 

   DS HG = Dual-Stack Home Gateway (CPE - Customer Premises Equipment). 

   As shown in the above figure, the ISP has not significantly changed 
   its IPv4 network. This approach enables IPv4 hosts to access the IPv4 
   Internet and IPv6 hosts to access the IPv6 Internet. A dual stack 
   host is treated as an IPv4 host when it uses IPv4 access service and 
   as an IPv6 host when it uses an IPv6 access service. In order to 
   enable IPv4 hosts to access the IPv6 Internet and IPv6 hosts to 
   access IPv4 Internet, NAT64 can be integrated with the CGN; see 
   Section 2.6 for details regarding IPv4/IPv6 intercommunication. The 
   integration of such mechanisms is out of scope for this document. 

   Two types of device need to be deployed in this approach: a dual-
   stack home gateway (HG), and a dual-stack CGN. The dual-stack home 
   gateway integrates both IPv6 and IPv4 forwarding and v6-over-v4 
   tunneling functions. It should follow the requirements of 
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router], including IPv6 prefix delegation. 
   It may integrate v4-v4 NAT functionality, too. The dual-stack CGN 
   integrates v6-over-v4 tunneling and v4-v4 CGN functions, as well as 
   standard IPv6 and IPv4 routing 

   The approach does not require any new mechanisms for IP packet 
   forwarding or encapsulation or decapsulation at tunnel end points. 
   The following sections describe how the HG and the incremental CGN 

2.2. Choice of tunneling technology 

   In principle, this model will work with any form of tunnel between 
   the dual-stack HG and the dual-stack CGN. However, tunnels that 
   require individual configuration are clearly undesirable because of 
Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 5] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

   their operational cost. Configured tunnels based directly on  
   [RFC4213] are therefore not suitable. A tunnel broker according to 
   [RFC3053] would also have high operational costs and be unsuitable 
   for home users. 

   6rd [RFC5569, RFC5969] technology appears suitable to support v6-
   over-v4 tunneling with low operational cost. GRE [RFC2784] with an 
   additional auto-configuration mechanism is also able to support v6-
   over-v4 tunneling. Other tunneling mechanisms such as 6over4 
   [RFC2529], 6to4 [RFC3056], the Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing 
   Protocol (ISATAP) [RFC5214] or Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET) 
   [RFC5558] could be considered. If the ISP has an entirely MPLS 
   infrastructure between the HG and the dual-stack CGN, it would also 
   be possible to use a 6PE [RFC4798] tunnel directly over MPLS. This 
   would, however, only be suitable for an advanced HG that is unlikely 
   to be found as a consumer device, and is not further discussed here. 
   To simplify the discussion, we assume the use of 6rd. 

2.3. Behavior of Dual-stack Home Gateway 

   When a dual-stack home gateway receives a data packet from a host, it 
   will determine whether the packet is an IPv4 or IPv6 packet. The 
   packet will be handled by an IPv4 or IPv6 stack as appropriate. For 
   IPv4, and in the absence of v4-v4 NAT on the HG, the stack will 
   simply forward the packet to the CGN, which will normally be the IPv4 
   default router. If v4-v4 NAT is enabled, the HG translates the packet 
   source address from a HG-scope private IPv4 address into a CGN-scope 
   IPv4 address, performs port mapping if needed, and then forwards the 
   packet towards the CGN. The HG records the v4-v4 address and port 
   mapping information for inbound packets, like any other NAT. 

   For IPv6, the HG needs to encapsulate the data into an IPv4 tunnel 
   packet, which has the dual-stack CGN as the IPv4 destination. The HG 
   sends the new IPv4 packet towards the CGN, for example using 6rd. 

   If the HG is linked to more than one CGN, it will record the mapping 
   information between the tunnel and the source IPv6 address for 
   inbound packets. Detailed considerations for the use of multiple CGNs 
   by one HG are for further study. 

   IPv4 packets from the CGN, and encapsulated IPv6 packets from the  
   CGN, will be translated or decapsulated according to the stored 
   mapping information and forwarded to the customer side of the HG. 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 6] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

2.4. Behavior of Dual-stack CGN 

   When a dual-stack CGN receives an IPv4 data packet from a dual-stack 
   home gateway, it will determine whether the packet is a normal IPv4 
   packet, which is non-encapsulated, or a v6-over-v4 tunnel packet 
   addressed to a tunnel end point within the CGN. For a normal IPv4 
   packet, the CGN translates the packet source address from a CGN-scope 
   IPv4 address into a public IPv4 address, performs port mapping if 
   necessary, and then forwards it normally to the IPv4 Internet. The 
   CGN records the v4-v4 address and port mapping information for 
   inbound packets, just like a normal NAT does. For a v6-over-v4 tunnel 
   packet, the tunnel end point within the CGN will decapsulate it into 
   the original IPv6 packet and then forward it to the IPv6 Internet. 
   The CGN records the mapping information between the tunnel and the 
   source IPv6 address for inbound packets. 

   Depending on the deployed location of the CGN, it may use a further 
   v6-over-v4 tunnel to connect to the IPv6 Internet. 

   Packets from the IPv4 Internet will be appropriately translated by 
   the CGN and forwarded to the HG, and packets from the IPv6 Internet 
   will be tunneled to the appropriate HG, using the stored mapping 
   information as necessary. 

2.5. Impact for existing hosts and unchanged networks 

   This approach does not affect the unchanged parts of ISP networks at 
   all. Legacy IPv4 ISP networks and their IPv4 devices remain in use. 
   The existing IPv4 hosts, shown as the lower right box in Figure 1, 
   either having global IPv4 addresses or behind v4-v4 NAT, can connect 
   to the IPv4 Internet as it is now. These hosts, if they are upgraded 
   to become dual-stack hosts, can access the IPv6 Internet through the 
   IPv4 ISP network by using IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel technologies. (See 
   section 2.7 for a comment on MTU size.) 

2.6. IPv4/IPv6 intercommunication 

   IPv6-only public services are not expected as long as there is 
   significant IPv4-only customer base in the world, for obvious 
   commercial reasons. However, IPv4/IPv6 intercommunication may become 
   issues in many scenarios. 

   The IETF is expected to standardize a recommended IPv4/IPv6 
   translation algorithm, sometimes referred to as NAT64. It is 
   specified in 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 7] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

   o  "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation" 
   o  "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators" [RFC6052] 
   o  "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 
      Clients to IPv4 Servers" [I-D.ietf-behave-dns64] 
   o  "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm" [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate] 
   o  "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from 
      IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers" 
   o  "An FTP ALG for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation" [I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64] 

   The service, as described in the IETF's "Guidelines for Using IPv6 
   Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment"  
   [I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines], provides for stateless 
   translation between hosts in an IPv4-only domain or which offer an 
   IPv4-only service and hosts with an IPv4-embedded IPv6 address in an 
   IPv6-only domain. It additionally provide access from IPv6 hosts with 
   general format addresses to hosts in an IPv4-only domain or which 
   offer an IPv4-only service. It does not provide any-to-any 
   translation. One result is that client-only hosts in the IPv6 domain 
   gain access to IPv4 services through stateful translation. Another 
   result is that the IPv6 network operator has the option of moving 
   servers into the IPv6-only domain while retaining accessibility for 
   IPv4-only clients, through stateless translation of an IPv4-embedded 
   IPv6 address. 

   Also, "Architectural Implications of NAT" [RFC2993] applies across 
   the service just as in IPv4/IPv4 translation: apart from the fact 
   that a system with an IPv4-embedded IPv6 address is reachable across 
   the NAT, which is unlike IPv4, any assumption on the application's 
   part that a local address is meaningful to a remote peer, and any use 
   of an IP address literal in the application payload, is a source of 
   service issues. In general, the recommended mitigation for this is 

   o  Ideally, applications should use DNS names rather than IP address 
      literals in URLs, URIs, and referrals, and in general be network 
      layer agnostic. 
   o  If they do not, the network may provide a relay or proxy that 
      straddles the domains. For example, an SMTP MTA with both IPv4 
      and IPv6 connectivity handles IPv4/IPv6 translation cleanly at the 
      application layer. 

2.7. Discussion 

   For IPv4 traffic, the incremental CGN approach inherits all the 
   problems of CGN address sharing techniques 
   [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues] (e.g., scaling, and the 
Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 8] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

   difficulty of supporting well-known ports for inbound traffic). 
   Application layer problems created by double NAT are beyond the scope 
   of this document. 

   For IPv6 traffic, a user behind the DS HG will see normal IPv6 
   service. We observe that an IPv6 tunnel MTU of at least 1500 bytes 
   would ensure that the mechanism does not cause excessive 
   fragmentation of IPv6 traffic nor excessive IPv6 path MTU discovery 
   interactions. This, and the absence of NAT problems for IPv6, will 
   create an incentive for users and application service providers to 
   prefer IPv6. 

   ICMP filtering [RFC4890] may be included as part of CGN functions. 

3. Smooth transition towards IPv6 infrastructure 

   Transition from pure NAT444 CGN or 6rd to the incremental CGN 
   approach is straightforward. The HG and CGN devices and their 
   locations do not have to be changed; only software upgrading may be 
   needed. In the ideal model, described below, even software upgrading 
   is not necessary; reconfiguration of the devices is enough. NAT444 
   CGN solves the public address shortage issues in the current IPv4 
   infrastructure. However, it does not contribute towards IPv6 
   deployment at all. The incremental CGN approach can inherit NAT444 
   CGN functions while providing overlay IPv6 services. 6rd mechanisms 
   can also transform smoothly into this incremental CGN model. However, 
   the home gateways need to be upgraded correspondingly to perform the 
   steps described below 

   The incremental CGN can also easily be transitioned to an IPv6-
   enabled infrastructure, in which the ISP network is either dual-stack 
   or IPv6-only.  

   If the ISP prefers to move to dual-stack routing, the HG should 
   simply switch off its v6-over-v4 function when it observes native 
   IPv6 RA or DHCPv6 traffic, and then forward both IPv6 and IPv4 
   traffic directly, while the dual-stack CGN keeps only its v4-v4 NAT 

   However, we expect ISPs to choose the approach described as 
   incremental CGN here because they intend to avoid dual-stack routing, 
   and to move incrementally from IPv4-only routing to IPv6-only  
   routing. In this case, the ideal model for the incremental CGN 
   approach is that of an integrated configurable CGN device and an 
   adaptive HG device. The integrated CGN device will be able to support 
   multiple functions, including NAT444 CGN, 6rd router (or an 
   alternative tunneling mechanism), DS-Lite, and dual-stack forwarding. 
Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                  [Page 9] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

   The HG has to integrate the corresponding functions, and be able to 
   detect relevant incremental changes on the CGN side. Typically the HG 
   will occasionally poll the CGN to discover which features are 
   operational. For example, starting from a pure IPv4-only scenario (in 
   which the HG treats the CGN only as an IPv4 default router), the HG 
   would discover by infrequent polling when 6rd became available. The 
   home user would then acquire an IPv6 prefix. At a later stage, the HG 
   would observe the appearance of native IPv6 Route Advertisement 
   messages or DHCPv6 messages to discover the availability of an IPv6 
   service including DS-Lite. Thus, when an ISP decides to switch from 
   incremental CGN to DS-Lite CGN, only a configuration change or a 
   minor software update is needed on the CGNs. The home gateway would 
   detect this change and switch automatically to DS-Lite mode. The only 
   impact on the home user will be to receive a different IPv6 prefix. 

   In the smooth transition model, both CGN and HG are re-usable devices 
   during different transition periods. This avoids potential multiple 
   upgrades. Different regions of the same ISP network may be at 
   different stages of the incremental process, using identical 
   equipment but with different configurations of the incremental CGN 
   devices in each region. Thus, IPv6 migration may be incrementally 
   achieved according to the real ISP and customer requirements. 

4. Security Considerations 

   Security issues associated with NAT have been documented in [RFC2663] 
   and [RFC2993]. Security issues for large-scale address sharing, 
   including CGN, are discussed in [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-
   issues]. The present specification does not introduce any new 
   features to CGN itself, and hence no new security considerations. 
   Security issues for 6rd are documented in [RFC5569, RFC5969] and 
   those for DS-Lite in [I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite]. 

   Since the tunnels proposed here exist entirely within a single ISP 
   network, between the HG/CPE and the CGN, the threat model is 
   relatively simple. [RFC4891] describes how to protect tunnels using 
   IPsec, but an ISP could reasonably deem its infrastructure to provide 
   adequate security without the additional protection and overhead of 
   IPsec. The intrinsic risks of tunnels are described in [I-D.ietf-
   v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns], which recommends that tunneled 
   traffic should not cross border routers. The incremental CGN approach 
   respects this recommendation. To avoid other risks caused by tunnels, 
   it is important that any security mechanisms based on packet 
   inspection, and any implementation of ingress filtering, are applied 
   to IPv6 packets after they have been decapsulated by the CGN. The 
   dual-stack home gateway will need to provide basic security 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                 [Page 10] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

   functionality for IPv6 [I-D.ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security]. Other 
   aspects are described in [RFC4864]. 

5. IANA Considerations 

   This draft does not request any IANA action. 

6. Acknowledgements 

   Useful comments were made by Fred Baker, Dan Wing, Fred Templin, 
   Seiichi Kawamura, Remi Despres, Janos Mohacsi, Mohamed Boucadair, 
   Shin Miyakawa, Joel Jaeggli, Jari Arkko, Tim Polk, Sean Turner and 
   other members of the IETF V6OPS working group. 

7. Change Log [RFC Editor please remove] 

   draft-jiang-incremental-cgn-00, original version, 2009-02-27 

   draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn-00, revised after comments at 
   IETF74, 2009-04-23 

   draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn-01, revised after comments at v6ops 
   mailing list, 2009-06-30 

   draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn-02, remove normative parts (to be 
   documented in other WGs), 2009-07-06 

   draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03, revised after comments at v6ops 
   mailing list, 2009-09-24 

   draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-00, accepted as v6ops wg document, 

   draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-01, revised after comments at v6ops 
   mailing list, 2010-06-21 

   draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-02, revised after comments at v6ops 
   WGLC, 2010-10-11 

   draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03, revised according comments from 
   IESG, 2011-1-4 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                 [Page 11] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 


8. References 

8.1. Normative References 

   [RFC2529] B. Carpenter, and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 
             Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC2529, March 1999. 

   [RFC2784] D. Farinacci, T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer and P. Traina, 
             "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March  

   [RFC5569] R. Despres, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 infrastructures 
             (6rd)", RFC 5569, January 2010. 

   [RFC5969] W. Townsley and O. Troan, "IPv6 via IPv4 Service Provider 
             Networks '6rd'", RFC5969, May 2010. 

8.2. Informative References 

   [RFC2663] P. Srisuresh and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address 
             Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, 
             August 1999. 

   [RFC2993] T. Hain, "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993, 
             November 2000. 

   [RFC3053] A. Durand, P. Fasano, I. Guardini and D. Lento, "IPv6 
             Tunnel Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001. 

   [RFC3056] B. Carpenter and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via 
             IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. 

   [RFC4213] E. Nordmark and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 
             for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 

   [RFC4798] J. De Clercq, D. Ooms, S. Prevost and F. Le Faucheur, 
             "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider 
             Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007. 

   [RFC4864] G. Van de Velde, T. Hain, R. Droms, B. Carpenter and E. 
             Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864, May 

   [RFC4890] E. Davies and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering 
             ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890, May 2007. 
Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                 [Page 12] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

   [RFC4891] R. Graveman, "Using IPsec to Secure IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnels", 
             RFC4891, May 2007. 

   [RFC5214] F. Templin, T. Gleeson and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site Automatic 
             Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214, March 2008. 

   [RFC5558] F. Templin, "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)", RFC 5558, 
             February 2010. 

   [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. 
             Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, 

   [IPUSAGE] G. Huston, IPv4 Address Report, March 2009, 

             A. Durand, "Dual-stack lite broadband deployments post IPv4 
             exhaustion", draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite, work in 

             H. Singh, W. Beebee, C. Donley, B. Stark and O. Troan, 
             "IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-
             cpe-router, work in progress. 

             J. Woodyatt, "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in 
             Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 
             Internet Service", draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security, 
             work in progress. 

             M. Bagnulo, P. Matthews and I. van Beijnum, "NAT64: Network 
             Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 
             Servers", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful, work in 

             M. Ford, et al, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", draft-
             ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues, work in progress. 

             I. Yamagata, T. Nishitani, S. Miyahawa, A. nakagawa and H. 
             Ashida, "Common requirements for IP address sharing 
             schemes", draft-nishitani-cgn, work in progress. 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                 [Page 13] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

             Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6 
             Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", draft-arkko-
             ipv6-transition-guidelines, work in progress. 

             Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, 
             "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from 
             IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", draft-ietf-behave-dns64, 
             work in progress. 

             Beijnum, I., "An FTP ALG for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation", 
             draft-ietf-behave-ftp64, work in progress. 

             Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for 
             IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework, 
             work in progress. 

             Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation 
             Algorithm", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate, work in 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                 [Page 14] 

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-03.txt     January 2011 

Author's Addresses 

   Sheng Jiang 
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 
   Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd., 
   Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100085 
   P.R. China 
   Dayong Guo 
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 
   Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd., 
   Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100085 
   P.R. China 
   Brian Carpenter 
   Department of Computer Science 
   University of Auckland 
   PB 92019 
   Auckland, 1142 
   New Zealand 

Jiang, et al.           Expires July 4, 2011                 [Page 15]