Analysis of Algorithms For Deriving Port Sets
draft-tsou-softwire-port-set-algorithms-analysis-04
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tina Tsou (Ting ZOU) , Tetsuya Murakami , Simon Perreault | ||
| Last updated | 2021-11-24 (Latest revision 2013-05-17) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-tsou-softwire-port-set-algorithms-analysis-04
Internet Engineering Task Force T. Tsou, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies (USA)
Intended status: Informational T. Murakami
Expires: November 18, 2013 IP Infusion
S. Perreault
Viagenie
May 17, 2013
Analysis of Algorithms For Deriving Port Sets
draft-tsou-softwire-port-set-algorithms-analysis-04
Abstract
This memo analyzes some port set definition algorithms used for
stateless IPv4 to IPv6 transition technologies. The transition
technologies using port set algorithms can be divided into two
categories: fully stateless approach and binding approach. Some
algorithms can work for both approaches.
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 November 18, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Various Types of Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Binding Approach Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Mask/Value Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Cryptographic Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Fully Stateless: the Generalized Modulus Algorithm
(GMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. 4rd-U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.4. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
1. Introduction
IPv6 transition technologies with address sharing can be divided into
three categories as suggested in [I-D.softwire-unified-cpe]:
o Fully stateful approach, e.g. [RFC6333]. Stateful solutions do
not make use of port sets, and are out of scope for this memo.
o Binding approach, with per-subscriber state, e.g.,
[I-D.softwire-lw4over6]. This type of algorithm does not embed
port set information and IPv4 address in the IPv6 address when
doing translation or encapsulation, so a mapping entry is required
in the border router. This type of solution gives flexibility in
address planning because the IPv4 address is not statically bound
to the IPv6 address. To some extent, the binding approach can
also be called a partially stateless approach.
o Fully stateless approach, e.g., [I-D.softwire-map]. This type of
algorithm embeds port set information and an IPv4 address in the
IPv6 address. For a given port number and IPv4 address, the
corresponding IPv6 address can be calculated using a limited set
of mapping rules rather than a mapping entry per subscriber.
Binding and stateless technologies can significantly simplify the
implementation of the border router and reduce resource requirements.
In these solutions, a port set is assigned to each CPE, and can be
calculated from a port set identifier (PSID) in conjunction with some
other parameters. For a given port number, the corresponding PSID
can also be derived; that is, the mapping algorithm must be
reversible.
Some port set definition algorithms have been proposed to support
these technologies. It may be useful to analyze the characteristics
of these algorithms for better understanding and to choose a proper
algorithm for different needs.
A good port set definition algorithm must be reversible and easy to
implement. It must be able to exclude the well-known ports (0-1023).
It should be able to define non-continuous or random port sets for
the modest gain in security against port-guessing attacks that these
provide. For the fully stateless method, the restrictions imposed by
the algorithm on the choice of IPv6 addresses for customer equipment
should be minimized. To simplify administration, the total number of
ports assigned should be roughly the same for each port set derived
by the algorithm. Finally, the algorithm should be adaptable to a
wide range of address sharing ratios.
This memo will analyze the following characteristics:
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
o Implementation: implementation complexity, performance, etc.
o Can calculate the port set identifier (PSID) from the port number
at the Border Router (BR).
o Can exclude well known ports without excluding other ports.
o Port set type: continuous, non-continuous, random. Continuous
port set provides common security, random port set provides good
security.
o Stateless: requires per-subscriber provisioning at the BR, yes or
no.
o Friendliness for NAT44: comply with NAT44 [RFC5382] or not.
o Sharing ratio: maximum, minimum sharing ratio.
2. Terminology
BR: Border Router.
CPE: Customer Premise Equipment.
GMA: Generalized Modulus Algorithm.
MAP: Map Address and Port.
PSID: Port Set Identifier, one of the key parameters used to
derive the set of ports allocated to a given CPE.
3. Various Types of Algorithms
3.1. Binding Approach Algorithms
3.1.1. Mask/Value Algorithm
[RFC6431] defines an option for the PPP Internet Protocol Control
Protocol (IPCP) [RFC1332] to allocate port sets to CPEs, as shown in
Figure 1. The Port Range Value plays the role of a PSID. The
example in [RFC6431] shows the case of a mask selecting a port number
prefix, but the mask can be more general.
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M| Reserved | Port Range Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Port Range Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IPCP Option Format For Port Set Identifier (PSID)
[I-D.softwire-lw4over6] also uses this type of port set definition
algorithm, for which provisioning is defined in
[I-D.sun-dhc-port-set-option]. Figure 2 illustrates the DHCP option.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| OPTION_PORT_SET | option-length |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Port Set Index |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Port Set Mask |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Figure 2: DHCP Port Set Option Format
The bit-wise AND of port set index and mask can be encoded in an IPv6
address, which will turn it into a fully stateless solution, similar
to parameter PSID in other technologies, e.g., MAP
[I-D.softwire-map].
The Port Range Value corresponding to a given port can be derived by
performing the bit-wise AND of the port number with the Port Range
Mask.
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Port Range Mask
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| | (two significant bits)
v v
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| Port Range Value
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|x x x 0 x 1 x x x x x x x x x x| Usable ports
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (x may be set to 0 or 1)
Figure 3: Example of Port Range Mask and Port Range Value
This algorithm can have some kind of randomization effect by setting
different numbers of bits and bits at different locations in the Port
Range Mask.
This algorithm may have a problem if the well known ports (0-1023)
need to be excluded; it is a bit difficult to achieve that. But if
the operator does not have a specific usage for the well known ports,
then it is safe to allocate those port to end users, just like other
common ports. Some tests have been done to confirm this.
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Criterion | Result |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Implementation | Easy |
| PSID from port | Yes |
| number | |
| Port exclusion | Difficult |
| Port set type | Continuous with prefix, non-continuous otherwise |
| Stateless | Requires BR to know mask, could be |
| | subscriber-independent. |
| NAT compliance | Care must be taken to avoid port overloading if |
| | mask varies between subscribers. |
| Sharing ratio | Can vary from 1 to 65536 subscribers per |
| | address. |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Evaluation of Mask/Value Algorithm
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
3.1.2. Cryptographic Algorithm
The cryptographic port set definition algorithm introduced in
[RFC6431] can provide very good protection against port guessing
attacks, but it is very difficult to derive the port set information,
e.g., the starting point, from a given port number. This algorithm
can only be used in binding scenarios; the BR must operate in per-
subscriber state mode.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M| Reserved | function |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| starting point | number of delegated ports |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| key K ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Format of the Cryptographically Random Port Range Option
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Criterion | Result |
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Implementation | Difficult |
| PSID from port | No (note) |
| number | |
| Port exclusion | Difficult |
| Port set type | Continuous or non-continuous |
| Stateless | Binding mode only. |
| NAT compliance | Care must be taken to avoid port |
| | overloading. |
| Sharing ratio | Can vary from 1 to 65536 subscribers per |
| | address. |
+---------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 2: Evaluation of Cryptographic Algorithm
Note: it may be possible to find a cryptographic algorithm which can
be reversed, e.g. define a reversible one-to-one mapping algorithm.
But that is out the scope of this memo. If strong security is
required, it may be worth giving this topic further study.
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
3.2. Fully Stateless: the Generalized Modulus Algorithm (GMA)
Currently there are three drafts supporting the GMA style algorithm:
MAP-E [I-D.softwire-map], 4rd-U [I-D.softwire-4rd], and MAP-T
[I-D.softwire-map-t], but they are not exactly all the same.
3.2.1. MAP-E
In MAP [I-D.softwire-map], a port set can be defined by the following
parameters:
R: sharing ratio;
P: PSID;
M: maximum number of contiguous ports.
To derive the set of port numbers in the port set corresponding to a
given PSID value, the following equation can be used:
Port = (R * M) * i + M * PSID + j
where i and j are indices which vary within limits to provide the
different port numbers belonging to the port set. The range of i
depends on the value (R * M) and the range of j is from 0 to (M - 1).
If (R * M) is less than or equal to 2^15, ports (e.g, the well- known
ports 0-1023) can be excluded from the lower end by putting a lower
limit dependent on the value (R * M) on index i. In this case, each
port set defined by the algorithm consists of a series of ranges of M
consecutive port numbers at intervals of (R * M).
On the other hand, if (R * M) is greater than 2^15, the first term
drops out of the above equation and a lower limit dependent on the
value of M has to be imposed on the value of PSID to exclude the
well- known ports. In this case, each PSID is associated with a
single range of M consecutive port numbers.
The GMA is easily reversible. For a given port number, the
corresponding PSID is given by:
PSID = floor( (Port modulo (R * M)) / M))
If R and M are powers of 2, this becomes a mask operation. The mask
consists of 'a' high-order zeroes, followed by 'k' ones, followed by
'm' low-order zeroes, where:
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
2^a = 65536/(R * M);
2^m = M;
k = 16 - a - m.
See Figure 5.
MAP-E defaults to a value of 'a' equal to 6. Thus by constraining
the index i to be >= 1, exactly the well-known port range is
excluded. Also, each port set consists of 63 equally-sized ranges of
consecutive values spaced 1024 ports apart.
0 8 15
+---------------+----------+------+-------------------+
| i | PSID | j |
+---------------+----------+------+-------------------+
|<----a bits--->|<-----k bits---->|<------m bits----->|
Figure 5: GMA Bit Representation Of a Port Number When R and M Are
Powers Of 2
For a complete explanation of the GMA, see Appendix B of
[I-D.softwire-map].
MAP-E embeds the PSID in the End User IPv6 Address provisioned on the
customer edge device. See Figure 6. The PSID's location within the
address is determined from the Basic Mapping Rule applicable to the
subscriber. A mask to extract the PSID from that address is
described as follows:
o High-order zeroes in the amount of (n + 32 - r) bits, where n is
the length of the IPv6 prefix in the Basic Mapping Rule and r is
the length of the IPv4 prefix in that rule.
o Ones in the amount of (r + o - 32) bits, where o is the number of
EA bits given by the rule.
o Zeroes for the remaining low-order portion of the address.
This operation is valid only if (r + o) is greater than 32. If not,
the IPv4 address or prefix assigned to the subscriber is unshared and
the customer edge device can use every port.
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
| 32 bits | | 16 bits |
+--------------------------+ +-------------------+
| IPv4 endpoint address | | Port in port set |
+--------------------------+ +-------------------+
: : : ___/ :
| r bits |32-r bits | / q bits : q = o - (32-r)
+---------------+----------+ +------------+
| IPv4 prefix |IPv4 sufx| |Port Set ID |
+---------------+----------+ +------------+
\ / ____/ ________/
\ : __/ _____/
\ : / /
| n bits | o bits | s bits | 128-n-o-s bits |
+--------------------+-----------+---------+------------+----------+
| Rule IPv6 prefix | EA bits |subnet ID| interface ID |
+--------------------+-----------+---------+-----------------------+
|<--- End-user IPv6 prefix --->|
Figure 6: Structure of the MAP-E End User IPv6 Address
3.2.2. 4rd-U
Everything that was described in the previous section for MAP-E also
applies to 4rd-U [I-D.softwire-4rd], with two differences. First,
the mapping rule applicable to a particular customer site includes an
indication of whether the customer edge equipment is permitted to use
the well-known ports or whether they must be excluded.
If the well-known ports are to be excluded, the default value of 'a'
(recall Figure 5) is 4 rather than 6. That means that the port set
consists of 15 rather than 63 ranges, spaced 4096 values apart. It
also means that ports 0-4095 rather than ports 0-1023 are excluded.
At an earlier point in time MAP-E had the same default, for which the
4rd-U document provides arguments. However, it was decided that the
waste of ports entailed (which implies a 6% reduction in the number
of subscribers sharing the same IPv4 address) was a sufficient reason
to change. However, see Section 4 for new evidence on this point.
If the well-known ports can be used, the default value of 'a' is
zero. That is, the PSID is positioned at the beginning of the port
number. As mentioned in the previous section, this implies that
subscribers assigned this mapping rule are assigned a single range of
consecutive ports. The subscribers assigned the lowest PSID values
receive port sets consisting partly or completely of well-known port
number values.
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
3.2.3. MAP-T
MAP-T [I-D.softwire-map-t] uses the same algorithm to assign port
sets to customer sites, this time with just one difference. The
default value of the offset 'a' is always 4. The consequences in
terms of wasted ports were spelled out in the previous section.
3.2.4. Evaluation
This section provides an evaluation of the GMA against our comparison
criteria.
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Criterion | Result |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Implementation | Easy |
| PSID from port | Yes |
| number | |
| Port exclusion | Easy, but using a value of the offset 'a' |
| | between 1 and 5 wastes ports and hence reduces |
| | the maximum practical sharing ratio. |
| Port set type | Continuous for 'a' = 0, non-continuous otherwise |
| Stateless | No subscriber-specific data required. |
| NAT compliance | Port sets are guaranteed to be non-overlapping. |
| Sharing ratio | Equal to 65536/(M * 2^a), where M is the range |
| | size for all subscribers sharing the same |
| | address. See note. |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 3: Evaluation of Cryptographic Algorithm
Note: a practical value of the total number of ports in the port set
is in the order of 400. Suppose one wants to guarantee each
subscriber at least this number of ports. Recall that the number of
equal ranges into which the port allocation is divided is equal to 1
for a = 0, 15 for a = 4, and 63 for a = 6. Because of the assumption
of equal range sizes, the number of ports M in each range has to be
rounded up in the general case to give a total number of ports at
least equal to 400. Table 4 shows the consequent impact on sharing
ratio. The rounding effect very much dominates the results. If the
target were 305 ports instead, the sharing ratio would be the same
for all three values of a, since 305 is a multiple of 15 and 63.
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
+---+-----+----------+--------------+------------+---------+
| a | 2^a | # Ranges | Range Size M | Tot. Ports | Ratio R |
+---+-----+----------+--------------+------------+---------+
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 400 | 400 | 163 |
| 4 | 16 | 15 | 27 | 405 | 151 |
| 6 | 64 | 63 | 7 | 441 | 146 |
+---+-----+----------+--------------+------------+---------+
Table 4: Port Allocations and Range Size For Different Values Of
Offset a
In Table 4, the value M is rounded up from the ratio 400/N, where N
is the number of separate ranges in the port set. The total number
of ports in the port set is this result multiplied by the number of
ranges. The sharing ratio is then the stated 65536/(M * 2^a),
rounded down to ensure every subscriber sharing the address gets the
same number of ports. For a = 0, this ratio would be reduced by 3 to
exclude the three ranges containing well-known ports.
4. Conclusion
The Generalized Modulus Algorithm (GMA) clearly comes the closest to
satisfying all of our criteria. As the example calculation in
Table 4 shows, the sharing ratio is sensitive to the rounding
necessary to guarantee at least a certain total number of ports to
each subscriber. In this regard, sensitivity will be higher for
larger values of the offset parameter 'a', leading to the surprising
result that for some ranges of values of the target total number of
ports, the sharing ratio will be less for a = 6 than for a = 4 even
though the latter wastefully excludes an extra 3072 ports.
The sensitivity of this result to the target total number of ports
per subscriber is shown if one assumes that that number is 441 ports.
Then the sharing ratio for a = 6 remains at 146, but that for a = 4
drops to 136.
The mask/value algorithm is really a generalization of the GMA. One
has the GMA if the one-bits of the mask are constrained to be
consecutive. The difference between the binding and fully stateless
approaches lies not in the algorithm itself, but in how the algorithm
parameters are conveyed to the border router. Binding uses per-
subscriber rules. The fully stateless approaches reviewed in this
document use a combination of shared mapping rules and information
embedded in specially-constructed addresses.
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
5. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
6. Security Considerations
The major security consideration related to the subject matter of
this document is the vulnerability of port allocation to a port
guessing attack. See [RFC6056] for details. The most important
factor in countering such an attack is to allocate ports randomly
from the assigned port set as they are required by different
applications. However, allocating port sets as non-continuous or
random entities requires the attacker to go to some extra effort in
order to determine the complete port set allocated to a subscriber.
Thus resistance to port guessing attacks is improved to a certain
degree by allocating non-continuous port sets. For the GMA, this
means that non-zero values of the offset value 'a' are to be
preferred.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
RFC 5382, October 2008.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
January 2011.
[RFC6431] Boucadair, M., Levis, P., Bajko, G., Savolainen, T., and
T. Tsou, "Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP
IP Control Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 6431, November 2011.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis]
Boucadair, M., Skoberne, N., and W. Dec, "Analysis of Port
Indexing Algorithms", September 2011.
[I-D.softwire-4rd]
Jiang, S., Despres, R., Penno, R., Lee, Y., Chen, G., and
M. Chen, "IPv4 Residual Deployment Via IPv6 - A Unified
Stateless Solution (4rd) (Work in progress)", April 2013.
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
[I-D.softwire-lw4over6]
Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Li, Y., and I.
Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the DS-Lite
Architecture (Work in progress)", April 2013.
[I-D.softwire-map]
Troan, O., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, "Mapping of Address and Port
(MAP) (Work in progress)", May 2013.
[I-D.softwire-map-t]
Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Troan, O., Matsushima, S., and
T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
Translation (MAP-T)", February 2013.
[I-D.softwire-unified-cpe]
Boucadair, M. and I. Farrer, "Unified IPv4-in-IPv6
Softwire CPE (Work in progress)", March 2013.
[I-D.sun-dhc-port-set-option]
Sun, Q., Li, Y., Sun, Q., Bajko, G., and M. Boucadair,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option for
Port Set Assignment (Work in progress)", April 2013.
[RFC1332] McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol
(IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Tina Tsou (editor)
Huawei Technologies (USA)
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara CA 95050
USA
Phone: +1 408 330 4424
Email: tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Port Set Algorithm Analysis May 2013
Tetsuya Murakami
IP Infusion
1188 East Arques Avenue
Sunnyvale
USA
Email: tetsuya.murakami@ipinfusion.com
Simon Perreault
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec, QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Phone: +1 418 656 9254
Email: simon.perreault@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Tsou, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 15]