Internet Engineering Task Force G. Chen
Internet-Draft Z. Cao
Intended status: Informational China Mobile
Expires: January 5, 2013 C. Byrne
T-Mobile USA
C. Xie
China Telecom
D. Binet
France Telecom
July 04, 2012
NAT64 Operational Experiences
draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-02
Abstract
This document summarizes some stateful NAT64 deployment scenarios and
operational experiences for NAT64-CGN and NAT64-CE.
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 January 5, 2013.
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
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. NAT64-CGN Deployment Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. NAT64-CGN Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. High Availability Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Quality of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Load Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. MTU Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. NAT64-CE Deployment Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. NAT64-CE Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Anti-DDoS/SYN Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. User Behavior Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. DNS Resolving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Load Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. MTU Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Additional Author List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
1. Introduction
With fast developments of global Internet, the demands for IP
addresses are rapidly increasing. IANA announced that the global
IPv4 address pool has been exhausted on February 3, 2011. IPv6 is
the only sustainable and perennial solution for numbering nodes on
the Internet. Network operators have to accelerate the process of
deploying IPv6 networks in order to meet the numbering needs of
expanding internet without available IPv4 addresses.
As IPv6 deployments progress, IPv6 will coexist with IPv4. The
Internet will include nodes that are IPv4-only, IPv6-only, and nodes
that are dual-stack with IPv4 and IPv6. As IPv6 deployment
progresses it may be simpler for operators to employ a single-version
network, since deploying both IPv4 and IPv6 protocol in parallel
would costs more than managing IPv6-only network. In a dual stack
architecture, operators have to maintain double management interfaces
and operational support system . Moreover, some additional efforts
should be paid for troubleshooting.
On the other hand, IPv6 could simplify the network provisioning.
Some justification has described in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat], IPv6-
only network is likely superior for operators to employ. In mobile
contexts, it could enable single IPv6 PDP, which eliminates
significant network cost caused by doubling the PDP count on a mass
of legacy mobile terminals. In broadband network, it could help to
scale edge network growth decoupled with IPv4 limitation.
With network transition, a significant part of network rely on IPv4
stack for a long time. The interconnection between IPv4-only nodes
and IPv6-only nodes is a critical capability. Given that widespread
dual-stack deployments have not been materialized over the last 10
years, it is translation mechanism based on obvious that
NAT64[RFC6146] function will be a key element of the going-forward
internet infrastructure.
[RFC6036] reported at least 30% operators plan to run some kind of
translator (presumably NAT64/DNS64). Operators would expect to get
more NAT64 deployment experiences. A very good example as [RFC6586]
documented show the benefits for operational communities. Compared
to it, this document is more specific on NAT64 network planning.
Regarding the IPv4/IPv6 translation, [RFC6144] has described a
framework enabling networks make interworking possible between IPv4-
only and IPv6-only networks. There are three scenarios "An IPv6
Network to the IPv4 Internet", "The IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 Network"
and "An IPv6 Network to an IPv4 Network" where NAT64 function is
relevant. Since the scenario of "The IPv6 Internet to the IPv4
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
Internet" seems the ideal case for inter-network translation
technology, this document has focused on the three cases and
categorized different NAT64 location and usages, depending if the
NAT64 is located in a NAT64-CGN and NAT64-CE. Therein, NAT64-CGN is
corresponding to the scenario "IPv6 Network to IPv4 Internet".
NAT64-CE is for "IPv6 Internet to IPv4 Network" and "IPv6 Network to
IPv4 Network" respectively. Based on different NAT64 modes,
different considerations have been elaborated for ISPs to facilitate
NAT64 deployments.
The purpose of this document is to summarize deployment experience of
several operators and content providers regarding NAT64. The reader
of this document can get the information for their possible
deployment of NAT64 in future. Whether the audiences take the
experience as their deployment guidance is up to them, not the
purpose of this document.
2. Terminology
The terms of NAT-CGN/CE is to be understood as a topological
qualifier to indicate different features for NAT64 deployment.
NAT64-CGN: A NAT64-CGN is placed in ISP network and managed by an
administrative entity, e.g. operators. From an administrator
view, NAT64-CGN usually forwards outbound traffic heading to IPv4
realm. IPv4 services in large scale could leverage the NAT64- CGN
node to serves ISP's subscribers with IPv6-enable services. ISP
as an administrative entity takes full control on IPv6 sides but
has limited or no control on IPv4 sides. Therefore, ISP should
accommodate the predominant IPv4 networks and guarantee
compatibilities for IPv4 services in wild.
NAT64-CE: A NAT64-CE is placed at the edge of customer network, e.g.
a network operated by an enterprise or Internet data center.
NAT64-CE makes IPv4 services in small/medium scale accessible for
the IPv6 only users. An administrative entity usually operates a
IPv4 network and take IPv6 access as a common infrastructure.
Since the services have been run at customer network scale,
NAT64-CE should only take care of particular types.
3. NAT64-CGN Deployment Experiences
The NAT64-CGN Scenario is depicted in Figure 1
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
-----------
---------- // \\
// \\ / \
/ +----+ \
| |XLAT| |
| An IPv6 +----+ The IPv4 |
| Network +----+ Internet | XLAT: IPv6/IPv4
| |DNS | | Translator
\ +----+ / DNS: DNS64
\\ // \ /
--------- \\ //
-----------
====>
Figure 1: NAT64-CGN Scenario: IPv6 Network to IPv4 Internet
3.1. NAT64-CGN Networking
NAT64-CGN case is focusing on connecting IPv6-only users with IPv4
Internet. NAT64 performs protocol translation from an IPv6 packet
header to an IPv4 packet header and vice versa is performed according
to the Stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]. Address translation maps IPv6
addresses to IPv4 addresses and vice versa.
Given that all connections to the IPv4 Internet from IPv6-only
clients must traverse the NAT64, the NAT64 should be located close to
the IPv4 peering points to reduce unnecessary backhaul costs and
latency. It is advantageous for troubleshooting and traffic
engineering to maintain the IPv6 traffic native for as long as
possible within an access network and only translate at the network
border.Traffic patterns as well as techno-economics studies have to
be carried out in order to define the optimized location for the
NAT64 function. Technical considerations, as detailed in this
section have also to be considered for location selection.
Coming to a real practice in broadband access network, NAT64
functionalities could be located on BNG(Broadband Network Gateway) or
Core Router depending on scale of IPv6-enable network. Considering
mobile networks, various possibilities can be envisaged to deploy
some NAT64 functions. Whatever the retained option, the NAT64
function will be deployed beyond the GGSN(Gateway GPRS Support Node)
or PDN-GW(Public Data Network-Gateway), i.e. first IP nodes in
current mobile architectures.
From implementation views, NAT64 functionalities could be served by
either a dedicated GW or an existing GW integrated with NAT64
functionality. In standalone NAT64, NAT64-CGN is placed in a side of
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
BNG or CR. The deployment has few impacts to a given network, which
results in a low OPEX. On the other side, an embedded NAT64 is
integrated with existing GW, it requires relative lower investment,
i.e. lower CAPEX. However, capacities of existing GW would be
restricted by the inserted functionality. It likely requires a new
round of network planning, which would cause high OPEX. In a mobile
context, NAT64 function can be co-located with GGSN/PDN-GW or it can
be embedded in existing FW/NAT44 already deployed or the function can
be collocated in existing routers. Whatever the solution retained
for the co-location option, impacts on existing services and legal
obligations have to be assessed. More discussion can be found at
following sub-sections.
The different deployment modes would correspond to specific use
cases, in which ISP should consider different perspectives, e.g.
traffic model, investment, network evolution, etc.
3.2. High Availability Consideration
High Availability (HA) is a major requirement for every service and
network service.
Two mechanisms are likely to be used to achieve high reliability,
i.e. cold-standby and hot-standby. Cold-standby has synchronized
configuration and mechanism to failover traffic between the hot and
cold systems such as VRRP [RFC5798] . Unlike hot-standby, cold-
standby does not synchronize NAT64 session state. This makes cold-
stanby less resource intensive and generally simpler, but it requires
clients to re-establish sessions when a fail-over occurs. Hot-stanby
has all the features of cold-standby but must also synchronize the
binding information base (BIB). Considering the most common Internet
traffic type is short lived sessions, hot-standby does not offer much
benefit unless long lived sessions are common and the cost is
justified.
3.3. Traceability
Traceablility is required in many cases to identify an attacker or a
host that launchs malicious attacks and/or for various other
purposes, such as accounting requirements. NAT64 devices are
required to log events like creation and deletion of translations and
information about the occupied resources. There are two different
demands for traceability,i.e. online or offline.
o Regarding the Online requirements, XFF (X-Forwarded-For)
[I-D.petersson-forwarded-for]would be a candidate, it appends IPv6
address of subscribers to HTTP headers which is passed on to WEB
servers, and the querier server can lookup radius servers for the
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
target subscribers based on IPv6 addresses included in XFF HTTP
headers. Some other solutions, as described in
[I-D.ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis].NAT64-CGN could also
deliver NAT64 session (BIB and STE) to Radius server by some
extent of radius protocol extension. That is an alternative
solution for online traceability, but high performance is required
on Radius servers .
o For off-line traceability, syslog might be a good choice.
[RFC6269] indicates address sharing solutions must record and
store information for specific period. Stateful NAT64 is supposed
to manage one mapping per session. That would raise a challenge
for storage and data processing. In order to mitigate the issue,
[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]proposed to pre-allocated a
group of ports for each specific IPv6 host. A trade-off among
address multiplexing efficiency, port randomization
security[RFC6056] and logging storage compression should be
considered during the planning. A hybrid mode combining
deterministic and dynamic port assignment was recommended
regarding the uncertainty of user traffic mode.
3.4. Quality of Experience
NAT64 is providing some translation capability between IPv6 and IPv4
end-nodes. In order to provide the reachability between two IP
address families, NAT64-CGN has to implement the appropriate ALGs,
e.g. FTP-ALG[RFC6384], RSTP-ALG, H.323-ALG,etc. It should be noted
that such ALG implementation may impact the performance on a NAT64
box in some extent. Therefore, ISPs as well as content providers
should avoid ALG requisition, when they design behaviors of the
client and server. They have to make sure that contents are
reachable thanks to native IPv6 connectivity. At the same time, it
is also important to remind customers that IPv6 end-to-end does not
required ALGs and therefore that provides the best experience.
The service experiences also should be optimized regarding stateful
NAT process. To be specific, session status normally is managed by a
static lifetime cycle. In some cases, NAT resource maybe suffered
from significant inactive users. NAT and beyond customers can also
suffer from service degradation because of number of ports
consummation by other subscribers using the same NAT64 device. A
flexible NAT session control is desirable to resolve the issues.
PCP[I-D.ietf-pcp-base] could be a candidate to provide such
capability. In the case, NAT64-CGN should integrate with PCP server,
depending on which available IPv4 address/Port could be assigned to
PCP client through PCP MAP/PEER mode. Such abilities should also be
considered to upgrade user experiences, e.g. assigning different
sizes of port ranges for different subscribers.Such mechanism is also
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
helpful to minimize terminal battery consumption reducing the number
of keepalive messages to be sent by terminal devices.
3.5. Load Balance
Load balance is an essential ability to avoid the issue of single
point of failure and add the feature of linear scalability. It is
important to achieve load balancing between these different devices
considering that deployment of multiple NAT64 devices is required to
achieve some service continuity and some QoE for the customers.
[I-D.zhang-behave-nat64-load-balancing] discusses several ways of
achieving NAT64 load balancing, including anycast based policy and
prefix64 selection based policy, either implemented via DNS64 or
Prefix64 assignments.
3.6. MTU Consideration
IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an MTU of 1280
octets or greater[RFC2460]. However, in case of NAT64 function
deployment some IPv4 link will be used on communication path and
originating IPv6 node may receive an ICMP Packet Too Big message
reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280. That would result the IPv6
allows packets to contain a fragment header, without the packet being
actually fragmented into multiple pieces.
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments] discusses how this could
situation could be exploited by an attacker to perform fragmentation-
based attacks, and also proposes an improved handling of such
packets. It required enhancements on protocol level, which might
imply potential upgrade/modifications on behaviors to deployed nodes.
Another candidate approach avoding this issue is to configure IPv4
MTU>=1260 from operational perspectives. It would forbid the
occurrence of PTB<1280. However, such operational consideration is
hardly applied to a wild and legacy "IPv4 Internet". In this case,
these issues are eliminated thanks to some specific operational
actions
4. NAT64-CE Deployment Experiences
The NAT64-CE Scenario is depicted in Figure 2
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
--------
// \\ ----------
/ \ // \\
/ +----+ \
| |XLAT| |
| The IPv6 +----+ An IPv4 |
| Internet +----+ Network | XLAT: IPv4/IPv6
| /Network |DNS | | Translator
\ +----+ / DNS: DNS64
\ / \\ //
\\ // ----------
--------
====>
Figure 2: NAT64-CE Scenario: IPv6 Internet/Network to IPv4 Network
4.1. NAT64-CE Networking
More and more contents providers would like to use IPv6 to serve
customers since it allows for the definition of new services without
having to backward integrate into the NATs and address limitations of
IPv4 networks, but they have to provide some IPv4 service continuity
to their customers and that militates for NAT64 design. Cloud
computing is growing, which requires millions of public addresses.
IPv6 could provide a good opportunity to meet the deployment
requirements by subsiding the location to a customer edge, e.g.
Enterprise-GW and Data Center. On the other side, residential
facilities is always going out of ISP control as far as devices
connected to home networks are not under ISP responsibility. It's
hard to guarantee positioned network device or installed applications
are IPv6-capable and it is not possible to consider that all devices
are IPv6 compliant. Thereby, NAT64 on CPE could easily help networks
deployment and to rely on some IPv6-only connectivity from the ISP.
One big challenge is NAT64-CE facing IPv6 Internet, on which a
significant IPv6 users may connect to. When increasingly numerous
users in IPv6 Internet access an IPv4 network, there will be not
enough IPv4 addresses and/or ports to serve the mapping. One
potential solution is to distribute NAT64-CE at separated CE domain.
Each domain could reuse the IPv4 address defined in RFC1918
[RFC1918], which would expand IPv4 spaces by increasing reuse ratio
of IPv4 address.
Note: considering this challenge of NAT64, it is suggested that
NAT64-CE is only deployed and used in the scenario for small scale
content providers and residential network where the incoming
connections from the IPv6 Internet is not too many to destroy the
NAT64 functionalities.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
4.2. Anti-DDoS/SYN Flood
For every incoming new connection from the IPv6 Internet, the
NAT64-CE creates state and maps that connection to an internally-
facing IPv4 address and port. An attacker can consume the resources
of the NAT64-CE device by sending an excessive number of connection
attempts. Without Anti-DDoS mechanism, the NAT64 is exposed to
attacks from the IPv6 Internet which will greatly influence the user
experience. Essentially, there are strong demands to have thorough
security mechanism to prevent malicious invasion in NAT64-CE
scenario. With service provisioning, potential safety hazard could
also deteriorate service quality. For example, DDoS will severely
degrade web performance. Security domain division is necessary in
this case, especially for NAT64-CE in enterprise network. One
practices in some ICP is place a L3 load balancer with capable of 10G
line rate DDoS defense, like SYN Flood with SYN PROXY-COOKIE. Load
Balancer could not only serve for optimization of traffic
distribution, but also take filtering helping enhanment of security.
4.3. User Behavior Analysis
The mapping information on the NAT64-CE is valuable for those who
deploy it. Owners or operators of NAT64-CE could use the mapping and
logging information for use behavior and preference analysis, and
acurate advertisement delivery. Different ways of achieving user
analysis may be applied. The NAT64-CE owner can either synchronize
the mapping information with its local analysis engine or deploy
dedicated address mapping rules on the CE so that the orginal address
information could be kept.
4.4. DNS Resolving
In the case of NAT64-CE, it is recommended to follow the
recommendations in [RFC6144]. There is no need for the DNS to
synthesize AAAA from A records, since static AAAA records can be
registered in the regular DNS to represent these IPv4-only hosts.
How to design the FQDN for the IPv6 service is out-of-scope of this
document.
4.5. Load Balance
Load balance on NAT64-CE was twofold. First off, traffic should be
balanced among multiple NAT64-CE devices, which has identical
requirement with NAT64-CGN. One point should be noticed that a
synthetic AAAA records may be added directly in authoritative DNS.
The load balance based on DNS64 may not work in those cases.
Secondly, NAT64-CE could also serve traffic distribution for IPv4
backend servers. There are also some ways of load balance for the
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
cases , where the user placed load balancer with NAT66
functionalities before the NAT64.
4.6. MTU Consideration
As compared to the MTU consideration in NAT64-CGN, MTU of IPv4
network are strongly recommeded to set more than 1260. Since a IPv4
network normally operated by a particular entity, it could take
advantages of administrative ways to easily get rid of fragmentation
risks discussed in [I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments].
5. Security Considerations
This document presents the deployment experiences of NAT64 in CGN and
CE scenario, some security considerations have been considered
regarding to specific NAT64 mode in section 2 and 3. In general, RFC
6146[RFC6146] provides TCP-tracking, Endpoint-dependent filtering
mechanisms to protect NAT64 from DDOS. In NAT64-CGN cases, ISP also
could adopt uRPF and black/white-list to enhance the security by
specifying access policies. for example, NAT64-CGN should forbid
establish NAT64 BIB for incoming IPv6 packets if URPF (Strict or
Loose mode) check does not pass or whose source IPv6 address is
associated to black-lists.
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jari Arkko, Dan Wing, Remi Despres,
Fred Baker, Joel Jaeggli, Lee Howard and Iljitsch van Beijnum for
their helpful comments. Many thanks to Wesley George and Satoru
Matsushima for their reviews.
8. Additional Author List
The following are extended authors who contributed to the effort:
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
Qiong Sun
China Telecom
Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing 100035
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-58552936
Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
QiBo Niu
ZTE
50,RuanJian Road.
YuHua District,
Nan Jing 210012
P.R.China
Email: niu.qibo@zte.com.cn
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 (work in progress), June 2012.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC5798] Nadas, S., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)
Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798, March 2010.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, 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.
[RFC6384] van Beijnum, I., "An FTP Application Layer Gateway (ALG)
for IPv6-to-IPv4 Translation", RFC 6384, October 2011.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]
Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., and K.
Sundaresan, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce
Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments",
draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-03 (work in
progress), June 2012.
[I-D.ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments]
Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "atomic" fragments",
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-00 (work in
progress), February 2012.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis]
Boucadair, M., Touch, J., Levis, P., and R. Penno,
"Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host
Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments",
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02 (work in
progress), April 2012.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]
Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-05 (work in progress), July 2012.
[]
Petersson, A. and M. Nilsson, "Forwarded HTTP Extension",
draft-petersson-forwarded-for-02 (work in progress),
November 2011.
[I-D.zhang-behave-nat64-load-balancing]
Zhang, D., Xu, X., and M. Boucadair, "Considerations on
NAT64 Load-Balancing",
draft-zhang-behave-nat64-load-balancing-03 (work in
progress), July 2011.
[RFC3924] Baker, F., Foster, B., and C. Sharp, "Cisco Architecture
for Lawful Intercept in IP Networks", RFC 3924,
October 2004.
[RFC6036] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Emerging Service Provider
Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6036, October 2010.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
January 2011.
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.
[RFC6586] Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only
Network", RFC 6586, April 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Gang Chen
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053
China
Email: phdgang@gmail.com
Zhen Cao
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
Xuanwu District,
Beijing 100053
China
Email: caozhen@chinamobile.com
Cameron Byrne
T-Mobile USA
Bellevue
Washington 98105
USA
Email: cameron.byrne@t-mobile.com
Chongfeng Xie
China Telecom
Room 708 No.118, Xizhimenneidajie
Beijing 100035
P.R.China
Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NAT64 Experience July 2012
David Binet
France Telecom
Rennes
35000
France
Email: david.binet@orange.com
Chen, et al. Expires January 5, 2013 [Page 15]