Internet Engineering Task Force                        S. Perreault, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  Viagenie
Intended status: BCP                                         I. Yamagata
Expires: April 26, 2012                                      S. Miyakawa
                                                      NTT Communications
                                                             A. Nakagawa
                                          Japan Internet Exchange (JPIX)
                                                               H. Ashida
                                                      IS Consulting G.K.
                                                        October 24, 2011

            Common requirements for Carrier Grade NAT (CGN)


   This document defines common requirements for Carrier-Grade NAT

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   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 BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Requirements for CGNs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Logging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Destination Logging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Bulk Port Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.2. Informative Reference  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix A.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
                publication)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.1.  Changed in -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.2.  Changed in -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.3.  Changed in -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     A.4.  Changed in -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

1.  Introduction

   With the shortage of IPv4 addresses, it is expected that more ISPs
   may want to provide a service where a public IPv4 address would be
   shared by many subscribers.  Each subscriber is assigned a private
   address, and a NAT situated in the ISP's network translates between
   private and public addresses.  This is known as NAT444
   [I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr] when the CPE includes a NAT

   This is not to be considered a solution to the shortage of IPv4
   addresses.  It is a service that can conceivably be offered alongside
   others, such as IPv6 services or regular, un-NATed IPv4 service.
   Some ISPs started offering such a service long before there was a
   shortage of IPv4 addresses, showing that there are driving forces
   other than the shortage of IPv4 addresses.

   This document describes behavioral requirements that are to be
   expected of those ISP-controlled NAT.  Meeting this set of
   requirements will greatly increase the likelihood that subscribers'
   applications will function properly.

   Readers should be aware of potential issues that may arise when
   sharing a public address between many subscribers.  See [RFC6269] for

   This document builds upon previous works describing requirements for
   generic NATs [RFC4787][RFC5382][RFC5508].  These documents, and their
   updates if any, still apply in this context.  What follows are
   additional requirements, to be satisfied on top of previous ones.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Readers are expected to be familiar with [RFC4787] and the terms
   defined there.  The following additional term is used in this

   Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN):  A NAT-based [RFC2663] functional element
      operated by an administrative entity (e.g. operator) to share the
      same address among several subscribers.  A CGN is managed by the
      administrative entity, not the subscribers.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

         Note that the term "carrier-grade" has nothing to do with the
         quality of the NAT; that is left to discretion of implementers.
         Rather, it is to be understood as a topological qualifier: the
         NAT is placed in an ISP's network and translates the traffic of
         potentially many subscribers.  Subscribers have limited or no
         control over the CGN, whereas they typically have full control
         over a NAT placed on their premises.

   Figure 1 summarizes a common network topology in which a CGN

                                  |       Internet
                  ............... | ...................
                                  |       ISP network
                              ++------++  External realm
                  ........... |  CGN   |...............
                              ++------++  Internal realm
                                |    |
                                |    |
                                |    |    ISP network
                  ............. | .. | ................
                                |    |  Customer premises
                        ++------++  ++------++
                        |  CPE1  |  |  CPE2  |  etc.
                        ++------++  ++------++

                      Figure 1: CGN network topology

   Another possible topology is one for hotspots, where there is no
   customer premise or CPE, but where a CGN serves a bunch of customers
   who don't trust each other and hence fairness is an issue.  One
   important difference with the previous topology is the absence of
   NAT444.  This, however, has no impact on CGN requirements since they
   are driven by fairness and robustness in the service provided to
   customers, which applies in both cases.

3.  Requirements for CGNs

   What follows is a list of requirements for CGNs.  They are in
   addition to those found in other documents such as [RFC4787],
   [RFC5382], and [RFC5508].

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   REQ-1:  A CGN MUST support at least the following transport
           protocols: TCP (MUST support [RFC5382]), UDP (MUST support
           [RFC4787]), and ICMP (MUST support [RFC5508]).  Support for
           additional transport protocols is OPTIONAL.

   Justification:  These protocols are the ones that NATs traditionally
      support.  The IETF has documented the best current practices for

   REQ-2:  A CGN MUST have a default "IP address pooling" behavior of
           "Paired".  The CGN administrator MAY change this behavior on
           an application protocol basis.

           *  When multiple overlapping internal address ranges share
              the same external address pool (e.g.  DS-Lite [RFC6333]),
              external addresses are paired with subscribers rather than
              internal addresses.

   Justification:  This stronger form of REQ-2 from [RFC4787] is
      justified by the stronger need for not breaking applications that
      depend on the external address remaining constant.

      Note that this requirement applies regardless of the transport
      protocol.  In other words, a CGN must use the same external IP
      address mapping for all sessions associated with the same internal
      IP address, be they TCP, UDP, ICMP, something else, or a mix of
      different protocols.

      The justification for allowing other behaviors is to allow the
      administrator to save external addresses and ports for application
      protocols that are known to work fine with other behaviors in
      practice.  However, the default behavior MUST be "Paired".

   REQ-3:  The CGN function SHOULD NOT have any pre-requisite on the
           size neither the contiguity of the external address pool.

           *  In particular, the CGN function SHOULD be able to be
              configured with contiguous and non-contiguous external
              IPv4 addresses.

   Justification:  Given the increasing rarity of IPv4 addresses, it is
      becoming harder for an operator to provide large contiguous
      address pools to CGNs.  Additionally, operational flexibility may
      require non-contiguous addresss pools for ressons such as
      differentiated services, routing management, etc.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   REQ-4:  A CGN SHOULD support limiting the number of external ports
           (or, equivalently, "identifiers" for ICMP) that are assigned
           per subscriber.

           A.  Limits SHOULD be configurable by the CGN administrator.

           B.  Limits MAY be configured and applied independently per
               transport protocol.

           C.  Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that the CGN include
               administrator-adjustable thresholds to prevent a single
               subscriber from consuming excessive CPU resources from
               the CGN (e.g. rate limit the subscriber's creation of new

   Justification:  A CGN can be considered a network resource that is
      shared by competing subscribers.  Limiting the number of external
      ports assigned to each subscriber mitigates the DoS attack that a
      subscriber could launch against other subscribers through the CGN
      in order to get a larger share of the resource.  It ensures
      fairness among subscribers.  Limiting the rate of allocation
      mitigates a similar attack where the CPU is the resource being
      targeted instead of port numbers.

   REQ-5:  A CGN SHOULD support limiting the amount of state memory
           allocated per mapping and per subscriber.  This may include
           limiting the number of TCP sessions, the number of filters,
           etc., depending on the NAT implementation.

           A.  Limits SHOULD be configurable by the CGN administrator.

           B.  Additionally, it SHOULD be possible to limit the rate at
               which memory-consuming state elements are allocated.

   Justification:  A NAT needs to keep track of TCP sessions associated
      to each mapping.  This state consumes resources for which, in the
      case of a CGN, subscribers may compete.  It is necessary to ensure
      that each subscriber has access to a fair share of the CGN's
      resources.  Limiting TCP sessions per subscriber and per time unit
      is an effective mitigation against inter-subscriber DoS attacks.
      Limiting the rate of allocation is intended to prevent against CPU
      resource exhaustion.

   REQ-6:  It SHOULD be possible to administratively turn off
           translation for specific destination addresses and/or ports.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   Justification:  It is common for a CGN administrator to provide
      access for subscribers to servers installed in the ISP's network,
      in the external realm.  When such a server is able to reach the
      internal realm via normal routing (which is entirely controlled by
      the ISP), translation is unneeded.  In that case, the CGN may
      forward packets without modification, thus acting like a plain
      router.  This may represent an important efficiency gain.

      Figure 2 illustrates this use-case.

                 X1:x1            X1':x1'            X2:x2
                 +---+from X1:x1  +---+from X1:x1    +---+
                 |   |  to X2:x2  |   |  to X2:x2    | S |
                 | C |>>>>>>>>>>>>| C |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>| e |
                 | P |            | G |              | r |
                 | E |<<<<<<<<<<<<| N |<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| v |
                 |   |from X2:x2  |   |from X2:x2    | e |
                 |   |  to X1:x1  |   |  to X1:x1    | r |
                 +---+            +---+              +---+

                        Figure 2: CGN pass-through

   REQ-7:  It is RECOMMENDED that a CGN have an "Endpoint-Independent
           Filtering" behavior UNLESS it is known that "Address-
           Independent Filtering" does not cause the application-layer
           protocol to break.

   Justification:  This is a stronger form of REQ-8 from [RFC4787].
      This is based on the observation that some games and peer-to-peer
      applications require EIF for the NAT traversal to work.  In the
      context of a CGN it is important to minimize application breakage.

   REQ-8:  When a CGN loses state (due to a crash, reboot, failover to a
           cold standby, etc.), it MUST NOT reuse the same external
           address+port pairs for new dynamic mappings for at least 120
           seconds, except for the following cases:

           A.  If the CGN tracks TCP sessions (e.g. with a state
               machine, as in [RFC6146] section, TCP ports MAY
               be reused immediately.

           B.  If the allocated external ports used address-dependent or
               address-and-port-dependent filtering before state loss,
               they MAY be reused immediately.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   Justification:  This is necessary in order to prevent collisions
      between old and new mappings and sessions.  It ensures that all
      established sessions are broken instead of redirected to a
      different peer.

      The exceptions are for cases where reusing a port immediately does
      not create a possibility that packets would be redirected to the
      wrong peer.

      The 120 seconds value corresponds to the Maximum Segment Lifetime
      (MSL) from [RFC0793].

      One way that this requirement could be satisfied would be have two
      distinct address pools: one dormant and one active.  When
      rebooting, the CGN would swap the dormant pool with the active
      pool.  Another way would be simply to wait 120 seconds before
      resuming NAT activity.

   REQ-9:  Once an external port is deallocated, it SHOULD NOT be
           reallocated to a new mapping until at least 120 seconds have
           passed.  The length of time and the maximum number of ports
           in this state SHOULD be configurable by the CGN
           administrator.  The following exceptions apply:

           A.  If the CGN tracks TCP sessions (e.g. with a state
               machine, as in [RFC6146] section, TCP ports MAY
               be reused immediately.

           B.  If the allocated external ports used address-dependent or
               address-and-port-dependent filtering before state loss,
               they MAY be reused immediately.

   Justification:  This is to prevent users from receiving unwanted
      traffic.  It also helps prevent against clock skew when mappings
      are logged.

      The exceptions are for cases where reusing a port immediately does
      not create a possibility that packets would be redirected to the
      wrong peer.

      The 120 seconds value corresponds to the Maximum Segment Lifetime
      (MSL) from [RFC0793].

   REQ-10:  A CGN SHOULD include a Port Control Protocol server

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   Justification:  Allowing subscribers to manipulate the NAT state
      table with PCP greatly increases the likelihood that applications
      will function properly.

   REQ-11:  A CGN SHOULD support [RFC4008].

   Justification:  It is anticipated that CGNs will be primarily
      deployed in ISP networks where the need for management is

      Note also that there are efforts within the IETF toward creating a
      MIB specifically for CGNs [I-D.jpdionne-behave-cgn-mib].

   REQ-12:  When packets pass from one side to the other, the DSCP
            values MUST be preserved.  If the CGN also includes diffserv
            classifier and marker functionality it MAY change the DSCP

   Justification:  See [RFC2983], in particular section 6.

   REQ-13:  When a CGN is unable to create a mapping due to resource
            constraints or administrative restrictions (i.e. quotas)...

            A.  it MUST drop the original packet;

            B.  it SHOULD send an ICMP Destination Unreachable message
                with code 3 (Port Unreachable) to the session initiator;

            C.  it SHOULD send a notification (e.g.  SNMP trap) towards
                a management system (if configured to do so);

            D.  and it SHOULD NOT delete existing mappings in order to
                "make room" for the new one.  (This only applies to
                normal CGN behavior, not to manual operator

   Justification:  This is a slightly different form of REQ-8 from
      [RFC5508].  Code 3 is preferred to code 13 because it is listed as
      a "soft error" in [RFC5461], which is important because we don't
      want TCP stacks to abort the connection attempt in this case.
      Sending an ICMP error may be rate-limited for security reasons,
      which is why requirement B is a SHOULD, not a MUST.

      Applications generally handle connection establishment failure
      better than established connection failure.  This is why dropping
      the packet initiating the new connection is to preferred to
      deleting existing mappings.  See also the rationale in [RFC5508]
      section 6.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

4.  Logging

   It may be necessary for CGN administrators to be able to identify a
   subscriber based on external IPv4 address, port, and timestamp in
   order to deal with abuse and lawful intercept requests.  When
   multiple subscribers share a single external address, the source
   address and port that are visible at the destination host have been
   translated from the ones originated by the subscriber.

   In order to be able to do this, the CGN would need to log the
   following information for each mapping created:

   o  subscriber identifier (e.g. internal source address or tunnel
      endpoint identifier)

   o  external source address

   o  external source port

   o  timestamp

   By "subscriber identifier" we mean information that uniquely
   identifies a subscriber.  For example, in a traditional NAT scenario,
   the internal source address would be sufficient.  In the case of DS-
   Lite, many subscribers share the same internal address and the
   subscriber identifier is the tunnel endpoint identifier (i.e. the
   B4's IPv6 address).

   A disadvantage of logging mappings is that CGNs under heavy usage may
   produce large amounts of logs, which may require large storage

4.1.  Destination Logging

   Readers should be aware of logging recommendations for Internet-
   facing servers [RFC6302].  With compliant servers, the destination
   address and port do not need to be logged by the CGN.  This can help
   reduce the amount of logging.  Furthermore, given that destination
   logging at the CGN creates privacy issues, CGNs SHOULD NOT log

5.  Bulk Port Allocation

   So far we have assumed that a CGN allocates one external port for
   every outgoing connection.  In this section, the impacts of
   allocating multiple external ports at a time are discussed.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   There is a range of things a CGN can do:

   Traditional:  For every outgoing connection, allocate one external

   Scattered port set:  For an outgoing connection, create a set of
      several non-consecutive external ports.  Subsequent outgoing
      connections will use ports from the set.  When the set is
      exhausted, a new connection causes a new set to be created.  A set
      is smaller or equal to the user's maximum port limit.

   Consecutive port set:  Same as the scattered port set, but the ports
      allocated to a set are consecutive.

   Note that this list is not exhaustive.  There is a continuum of
   behavior that a CGN may choose to implement.  For example, a CGN
   could use scattered port sets of consecutive port sets.

   The impacts of bulk port allocation are as follows.

   Port Utilization:  The mechanisms at the top of the list are very
      efficient in their port utilization.  In that sense, they have
      good scaling properties (nothing is wasted).  The mechanisms at
      the bottom of the list will waste ports.  The number of wasted
      ports is proportional to size of the "bin".

   Logging:  Traditional allocation creates a lot of log entries as
      compared to allocation by port sets create much fewer entries.
      Scattered and consecutive port sets generate the same number of
      log entries.  In the case of consecutive port sets, entries can be
      expressed very compactly by indicating a range (e.g. "12000-
      12009").  Some scattered port set allocation schemes can also
      generate small log entries containing the parameters and algorithm
      used for the port set generation (see e.g.

      With large set sizes, the logging frequency for scattered and
      consecutive port sets can approach that of DHCP servers.

      Logging destination addresses and ports can only be done on a per-
      session basis.  This means that destination logging for a CGN
      implementing bulk port allocation would create one log entry per
      session containing the destination address and port.  Other
      information could still be logged in one entry per port set.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   Security:  Traditional and scattered port sets provide very good
      security in that ports numbers are not easily guessed.  Easily
      guessed port numbers put subscribers at risk of the attacks
      described in [RFC6056].  Consecutive port sets provides poor
      security to subscribers, especially if the set size is small.

6.  Deployment Considerations

   Several issues are encountered when CGNs are used [RFC6269].  There
   is current work in the IETF toward alleviating some of these issues.
   For example, see [I-D.boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis].

   The address sharing ratio is the ratio between the number of external
   addresses and the number of internal addresses that a CGN is
   configured to handle.  See [RFC6269] section 26.2 for guidance on
   picking an appropriate ratio.

7.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations.

8.  Security Considerations

   If a malicious subscriber can spoof another subscriber's CPE, it may
   cause a DoS to that subscriber by creating mappings up to the allowed
   limit.  Therefore, the CGN administrator SHOULD ensure that spoofing
   is impossible.  This can be accomplished with ingress filtering, as
   described in [RFC2827].

   Endpoint-Independent Filtering has security considerations which are
   discussed in [RFC4787].

   NATs sometimes perform fragment reassembly.  CGNs would do so at
   presumably high data rates.  Therefore, the reader should be familiar
   with the potential security issues described in [RFC4963].

9.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks for the input and review by Arifumi Matsumoto, Benson
   Schliesser, Dai Kuwabara, Dan Wing, Dave Thaler, Francis Dupont, Joe
   Touch, Lars Eggert, Kousuke Shishikura, Mohamed Boucadair, Nejc
   Skoberne, Reinaldo Penno, Senthil Sivakumar, Takanori Mizuguchi,
   Takeshi Tomochika, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Tomohiro Nishitani, Tomoya
   Yoshida, and Yasuhiro Shirasaki.  Dan Wing also contributed much of

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   section 5.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4008]  Rohit, R., Srisuresh, P., Raghunarayan, R., Pai, N., and
              C. Wang, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Network
              Address Translators (NAT)", RFC 4008, March 2005.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [RFC5382]  Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
              Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
              RFC 5382, October 2008.

   [RFC5508]  Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
              Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
              April 2009.

              Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
              Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
              draft-ietf-pcp-base-16 (work in progress), October 2011.

10.2.  Informative Reference

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
              RFC 793, September 1981.

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

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.

   [RFC2983]  Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
              RFC 2983, October 2000.

   [RFC4963]  Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

              Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, July 2007.

   [RFC5461]  Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
              February 2009.

   [RFC6056]  Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
              Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
              January 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.

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
              June 2011.

   [RFC6302]  Durand, A., Gashinsky, I., Lee, D., and S. Sheppard,
              "Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers",
              BCP 162, RFC 6302, June 2011.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.

              Boucadair, M., Touch, J., Levis, P., and R. Penno,
              "Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host
              Identifier in Shared Address Deployments",
              draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04 (work in
              progress), September 2011.

              Boucadair, M., Levis, P., Bajko, G., Savolainen, T., and
              T. Tsou, "Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP
              IPCP", draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-09 (work in
              progress), September 2011.

              Dionne, J. and M. Blanchet, "CGN Management Information
              Base (MIB)", draft-jpdionne-behave-cgn-mib-00 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

              Yamaguchi, J., Shirasaki, Y., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
              and H. Ashida, "NAT444 addressing models",
              draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-06 (work in
              progress), July 2011.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

Appendix A.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to

A.1.  Changed in -04

   o  Fixed nits, spelling, updated references.

   o  CGNs SHOULD NOT log destinations.

   o  Allow address-dependent filtering when it does not cause the
      application protocol to break.

   o  Refer to RFC4787 security considerations on EIF.

   o  Clarify REQ-12 point D (it does not apply to operator

   o  Changed "CGNs SHOULD limit ..." to "SHOULD support limiting" to
      make it clear that the operator is in control.

   o  Added reference to RFC 4963.

   o  Added requirement for non-contiguous external address pools.

A.2.  Changed in -03

   o  Added exceptions for which it is not necessary to wait 120 seconds
      before reusing a port.

   o  Renamed "random port set" to "scattered port set", which is more

   o  Log "subscriber identifier" instead of internal address+port to
      allow for overlapping internal address ranges (DS-Lite).

   o  Adjusted logging text and added reference to I-D.boucadair-pppext-

   o  Adjusted destination logging text for bulk port allocation

   o  Removed requirement for I-D.ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update.

   o  Made PCP support a SHOULD-level requirement.

   o  Lowered the level of requirement for not dropping existing
      mappings in order to "make room" to SHOULD level, and added

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

A.3.  Changed in -02

   o  CGNs MUST support at least TCP, UDP, and ICMP.

   o  Add requirement from I-D.ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update.

   o  Add informative reference to [RFC6269].

   o  Add requirement (SHOULD level) for a port forwarding protocol.

   o  Allow any pooling behavior on a per-application protocol basis.

   o  Adjust wording for external port allocation rate limiting.

   o  Add requirement for RFC4008 support (SHOULD level).

   o  Adjust wording for swapping address pools when rebooting.

   o  Add DSCP requirement (stolen from draft-jennings-behave-nat6).

   o  Add informative reference to

   o  Add requirement for hold-down pool.

   o  Change definition of CGN.

   o  Avoid usage of "device" loaded word throughout the document.

   o  Add requirement about resource exhaustion.

   o  Change title.

   o  Describe additional CGN topology where there is no NAT444.

   o  Better justification for "Paired" pool behavior.

   o  Make it clear that rate limiting allocation is for preserving CPU

   o  Generalize the requirement for limiting the number of TCP sessions
      per mapping so that it applies to all memory-consuming state

   o  Change CPE to subscriber where it applies throughout the text.

   o  Better terminology for bulk port allocation mechanisms.

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   o  Explain how external address pairing works with DS-Lite.

A.4.  Changed in -01

   o  Terminology: LSN is now CGN.

   o  Imported all requirements from RFCs 4787, 5382, and 5508.  This
      allowed us to eliminate some duplication.

   o  Added references to
      draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations and

   o  Incorporated a requirement from

Authors' Addresses

   Simon Perreault (editor)
   2875 boul. Laurier, suite D2-630
   Quebec, QC  G1V 2M2

   Phone: +1 418 656 9254

   Ikuhei Yamagata
   NTT Communications Corporation
   Gran Park Tower 17F, 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
   Tokyo  108-8118

   Phone: +81 50 3812 4704

Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              CGN Requirements                October 2011

   Shin Miyakawa
   NTT Communications Corporation
   Gran Park Tower 17F, 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
   Tokyo  108-8118

   Phone: +81 50 3812 4695

   Akira Nakagawa
   Japan Internet Exchange Co., Ltd. (JPIX)
   Otemachi Building 21F, 1-8-1 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku
   Tokyo  100-0004

   Phone: +81 90 9242 2717

   Hiroyuki Ashida
   IS Consulting G.K.
   12-17 Odenma-cho Nihonbashi Chuo-ku
   Tokyo  103-0011


Perreault, et al.        Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 18]