Internet Engineering Task Force M. Mawatari
Internet-Draft Japan Internet Exchange Co.,Ltd.
Intended status: BCP M. Kawashima
Expires: March 22, 2013 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
C. Byrne
T-Mobile USA
September 18, 2012
464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation
draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08
Abstract
This document describes an architecture (464XLAT) for providing
limited IPv4 connectivity across an IPv6-only network by combining
existing and well-known stateful protocol translation RFC 6146 in the
core and stateless protocol translation RFC 6145 at the edge. 464XLAT
is a simple and scalable technique to quickly deploy limited IPv4
access service to IPv6-only edge networks without encapsulation.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 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
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. BCP Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Motivation and Uniqueness of 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Wireline Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Wireline Network Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. IPv6 Address Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation Chart . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.3. IPv6 Prefix Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.4. DNS Proxy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.5. CLAT in a Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.6. CLAT to CLAT communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Traffic Treatment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Examples of IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
1. Introduction
With the exhaustion of the unallocated IPv4 address pools, it will be
difficult for many networks to assign IPv4 addresses to end users.
This document describes an IPv4 over IPv6 solution as one of the
techniques for IPv4 service extension and encouragement of IPv6
deployment. 464XLAT is not a one-for-one replacement of full IPv4
functionality. The 464XLAT architecture only supports IPv4 in the
client server model, where the server has a global IPv4 address.
This means it is not fit for IPv4 peer-to-peer communication or
inbound IPv4 connections. 464XLAT builds on IPv6 transport and
includes full any-to-any IPv6 communication.
The 464XLAT architecture described in this document uses IPv4/IPv6
translation standardized in [RFC6145] and [RFC6146]. It does not
require DNS64 [RFC6147] since an IPv4 host may simply send IPv4
packets, including packets to an IPv4 DNS server, which will be
translated on the customer side translator(CLAT) to IPv6 and back to
IPv4 on the provider side translator(PLAT). 464XLAT networks may use
DNS64 [RFC6147] to enable single stateful translation [RFC6146]
instead of 464XLAT double translation where possible. The 464XLAT
architecture encourages the IPv6 transition by making IPv4 services
reachable across IPv6-only networks and providing IPv6 and IPv4
connectivity to single-stack IPv4 or IPv6 servers and peers.
2. BCP Scenario
This BCP only applies when the following two criteria are present:
1. There is an IPv6-only network that uses stateful translation
[RFC6146] as the only mechanism for providing IPv4 access.
2. There are IPv4-only applications or hosts that must communicate
across the IPv6-only network to reach the IPv4 Internet.
3. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
4. Terminology
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
PLAT: PLAT is Provider side translator(XLAT) that complies with
[RFC6146]. It translates N:1 global IPv6 addresses to global
IPv4 addresses, and vice versa.
CLAT: CLAT is Customer side translator(XLAT) that complies with
[RFC6145]. It algorithmically translates 1:1 private IPv4
addresses to global IPv6 addresses, and vice versa. The CLAT
function is applicable to a router or an end-node such as a
mobile phone. The CLAT SHOULD perform router function to
facilitate packets forwarding through the stateless
translation even if it is an end-node. The CLAT as a common
home router or wireless 3GPP router is expected to perform
gateway functions such as DHCP server and DNS proxy for local
clients. The CLAT does not comply with the sentence "Both
IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses and IPv4-converted IPv6
addresses SHOULD use the same prefix." that is described on
Section 3.3 in [RFC6052] due to using different IPv6 prefixes
for CLAT-side and PLAT-side IPv4 addresses.
5. Motivation and Uniqueness of 464XLAT
1. Minimal IPv4 resource requirements, maximum IPv4 efficiency
through statistical multiplexing.
2. No new protocols required, quick deployment.
3. IPv6-only networks are simpler and therefore less expensive to
operate.
6. Network Architecture
Examples of 464XLAT architectures are shown in the figures in the
following sections.
Wireline Network Architecture can fit in the situations where there
are clients behind the CLAT in the same way regardless of the type of
access service, for example FTTH, DOCSIS, or WiFi.
Wireless 3GPP Network Architecture fits in the situations where a
client terminates the wireless access network and may act as a router
with tethered clients.
6.1. Wireline Network Architecture
The private IPv4 host on this diagram can reach global IPv4 hosts via
translation on both CLAT and PLAT. On the other hand, the IPv6 host
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
can reach other IPv6 hosts on the Internet directly without
translation. This means that the CPE/CLAT can not only have the
function of a CLAT but also the function of an IPv6 native router for
native IPv6 traffic. The v4p host behind the CLAT on this diagram
has [RFC1918] addresses.
+------+
| v6 |
| host |
+--+---+
|
.---+---.
/ \
/ IPv6 \
| Internet |
\ /
`----+----'
|
+------+ | .---+---. .------.
| v6 +---+ +------+ / \ +------+ / \
| host | | | | / IPv6 \ | | / IPv4 \
+------+ +---+ CLAT +---+ Network +---+ PLAT +---+ Internet |
+--------+ | | | \ / | | \ /
| v4p/v6 +-+ +------+ `---------' +------+ `----+----'
| host | | |
+--------+ | +--+---+
+------+ | | v4g |
| v4p +---+ | host |
| host | | +------+
+------+ |
<- v4p -> XLAT <--------- v6 --------> XLAT <- v4g ->
v6 : Global IPv6
v4p : Private IPv4
v4g : Global IPv4
Figure 1: Wireline Network Topology
6.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Architecture
The CLAT function on the User Equipment (UE) provides an [RFC1918]
address and IPv4 default route to the local node network stack. The
applications on the UE can use the private IPv4 address for reaching
global IPv4 hosts via translation on both the CLAT and the PLAT. On
the other hand, reaching IPv6 hosts (including host presented via
DNS64 [RFC6147]) does not require the CLAT function on the UE.
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
Presenting a private IPv4 network for tethering via NAT44 and
stateless translation on the UE is also an application of the CLAT.
+------+
| v6 |
| host |
+--+---+
|
.---+---.
/ \
/ IPv6 \
| Internet |
\ /
UE / Mobile Phone `---------'
+----------------------+ |
| +----+ | | .---+---. .------.
| | v6 +----+ +------+ / \ +------+ / \
| +----+ | | | / IPv6 PDP \ | | / IPv4 \
| +---+ CLAT +---+ Mobile Core +---+ PLAT +--+ Internet |
| | | | \ GGSN / | | \ /
| | +------+ \ ' +------+ `----+---'
| +-----+ | | `-------' |
| | v4p +---+ | +--+---+
| +-----+ | | | v4g |
+----------------------+ | host |
+------+
<- v4p -> XLAT <--------- v6 --------> XLAT <- v4g ->
v6 : Global IPv6
v4p : Private IPv4
v4g : Global IPv4
Figure 2: Wireless 3GPP Network Topology
7. Applicability
7.1. Wireline Network Applicability
When an ISP has IPv6 access service and provides 464XLAT, the ISP can
provide outgoing IPv4 service to end users across an IPv6 access
network. The result is that edge network growth is no longer tightly
coupled to the availability of scarce IPv4 addresses.
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
If another ISP operates the PLAT, the edge ISP is only required to
deploy an IPv6 access network. All ISPs do not need IPv4 access
networks. They can migrate their access network to a simple and
highly scalable IPv6-only environment.
7.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Applicability
At the time of writing, in September 2012, the vast majority of
mobile networks are compliant to Pre-Release 9 3GPP standards. In
Pre-Release 9 3GPP networks, GSM and UMTS networks must signal and
support both IPv4 and IPv6 Packet Data Protocol (PDP) attachments to
access IPv4 and IPv6 network destinations [RFC6459]. Since there are
two PDPs required to support two address families, this is double the
number of PDPs required to support the status quo of one address
family, which is IPv4.
For the cases of connecting to an IPv4 literal or IPv4 socket that
require IPv4 connectivity, the CLAT function on the UE provides a
private IPv4 address and IPv4 default route on the host for the
applications to reference and bind to. Connections sourced from the
IPv4 interface are immediately routed to the CLAT function and passed
to the IPv6-only mobile network, destined for the PLAT. In summary,
the UE has the CLAT function that does a stateless translation
[RFC6145], but only when required by an IPv4-only scenario such as
IPv4 literals or IPv4-only sockets. The mobile network has a PLAT
that does stateful translation [RFC6146].
464XLAT works with today's existing systems as much as possible.
464XLAT is compatible with existing network based deep packet
inspection solutions like 3GPP standardized Policy and Charging
Control (PCC) [TS.23203].
8. Implementation Considerations
8.1. IPv6 Address Format
The IPv6 address format in 464XLAT is defined in Section 2.2 of
[RFC6052].
8.2. IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation Chart
This chart offers a explanation about address translation
architecture using combination of stateful translation at the PLAT
and stateless translation at the CLAT. The client on this chart is
delegated IPv6 prefix from a prefix delegation mechanism such as
DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633], therefore it has a dedicated IPv6 prefix for
translation.
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
Destination IPv4 address
+----------------------------+
| Global IPv4 address |
| assigned to IPv4 server |
+--------+ +----------------------------+
| IPv4 | Source IPv4 address
| server | +----------------------------+
+--------+ | Global IPv4 address |
^ | assigned to IPv4 PLAT pool |
| +----------------------------+
+--------+
| PLAT | Stateful XLATE(IPv4:IPv6=1:n)
+--------+
^
|
(IPv6 cloud)
Destination IPv6 address
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv4-Embedded IPv6 address |
| defined in Section 2.2 of RFC6052 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Source IPv6 address
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| IPv4-Embedded IPv6 address |
| defined in Section 2.2 of RFC6052 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
(IPv6 cloud)
^
|
+--------+
| CLAT | Stateless XLATE(IPv4:IPv6=1:1)
+--------+
^ Destination IPv4 address
| +----------------------------+
+--------+ | Global IPv4 address |
| IPv4 | | assigned to IPv4 server |
| client | +----------------------------+
+--------+ Source IPv4 address
+----------------------------+
| Private IPv4 address |
| assigned to IPv4 client |
+----------------------------+
Case of enabling only stateless XLATE on CLAT
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
8.3. IPv6 Prefix Handling
The CLAT SHOULD acquire a dedicated /64 prefix for the purpose of
sending and receiving statelessly translated packets.
The CLAT MAY discover the PLAT-side translation IPv6 prefix used as a
destination of the PLAT via
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic]. In the future some
other mechanisms, such as a new DHCPv6 option, will possibly be
defined.
When a dedicated /64 prefix is not available from DHCPv6-PD
[RFC3633], the CLAT MAY perform NAT44 for all IPv4 LAN packets so
that all the LAN originated IPv4 packets appear from a single IPv4
address and are then statelessly translated to one IPv6 address that
is claimed by the CLAT via NDP and defended with DAD.
8.4. DNS Proxy Implementation
The CLAT SHOULD implement a DNS proxy as defined in [RFC5625]. The
case of an IPv4-only node behind the CLAT querying an IPv4 DNS server
is undesirable since it requires both stateful and stateless
translation for each DNS lookup. The CLAT SHOULD set itself as the
DNS server via DHCP or other means and proxy DNS queries for IPv4 and
IPv6 LAN clients. Using the CLAT enabled home router or UE as a DNS
proxy is a normal consumer gateway function and simplifies the
traffic flow so that only IPv6 native queries are made across the
access network. The CLAT SHOULD allow for a client to query any DNS
server of its choice and bypass the proxy.
8.5. CLAT in a Gateway
The CLAT is a stateless translation feature which can be implemented
in a common home router or mobile phone that has a tethering feature.
The router with CLAT function SHOULD provide common router services
such as DHCP of [RFC1918] addresses, DHCPv6, and DNS service.
8.6. CLAT to CLAT communications
While CLAT to CLAT IPv4 communication may work when the client IPv4
subnets do not overlap, this traffic flow is out of scope. 464XLAT is
a hub and spoke architecture focused on enabling IPv4-only services
over IPv6-only networks.
9. Deployment Considerations
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
9.1. Traffic Engineering
Even if the ISP for end users is different from the PLAT provider
(e.g. another ISP), it can implement traffic engineering
independently from the PLAT provider. Detailed reasons are below:
1. The ISP for end users can figure out IPv4 destination address
from translated IPv6 packet header, so it can implement traffic
engineering based on IPv4 destination address (e.g. traffic
monitoring for each IPv4 destination address, packet filtering
for each IPv4 destination address, etc.). The tunneling methods
do not have such an advantage, without any deep packet inspection
for processing the inner IPv4 packet of the tunnel packet.
2. If the ISP for end users can assign an IPv6 prefix greater than
/64 to each subscriber, this 464XLAT architecture can separate
IPv6 prefix for native IPv6 packets and the XLAT prefixes for
IPv4/IPv6 translation packets. Accordingly, it can identify the
type of packets ("native IPv6 packets" and "IPv4/IPv6 translation
packets"), and implement traffic engineering based on the IPv6
prefix.
9.2. Traffic Treatment Scenarios
The below table outlines how different permutations of connectivity
are treated in the 464XLAT architecture.
NOTE: 464XLAT double translation treatment will be stateless when a
dedicated /64 is available for translation on the CLAT. Otherwise,
the CLAT will have both stateful and stateless since it requires
NAT44 from the LAN to a single IPv4 address and then stateless
translation to a single IPv6 address.
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| Server | Application | Traffic Treatment | Location of |
| | and Host | | Translation |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| IPv6 | IPv6 | End-to-end IPv6 | None |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| IPv4 | IPv6 | Stateful Translation | PLAT |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
| IPv4 | IPv4 | 464XLAT | PLAT/CLAT |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+
Traffic Treatment Scenarios
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
10. Security Considerations
To implement a PLAT, see security considerations presented in Section
5 of [RFC6146].
To implement a CLAT, see security considerations presented in Section
7 of [RFC6145]. The CLAT MAY comply with [RFC6092].
11. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
12. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank JPIX NOC members, JPIX 464XLAT trial
service members, Seiichi Kawamura, Dan Drown, Brian Carpenter, Rajiv
Asati, Washam Fan, Behcet Sarikaya, Jan Zorz, Tatsuya Oishi, Lorenzo
Colitti, Erik Kline, Ole Troan, Maoke Chen, Gang Chen, Tom Petch,
Jouni Korhonen, Bjoern A. Zeeb, Hemant Singh, Vizdal Ales, Mark ZZZ
Smith, Mikael Abrahamsson, Tore Anderson, Teemu Savolainen, Alexandru
Petrescu, Gert Doering, Victor Kuarsingh, Ray Hunter, James Woodyatt,
and Tom Taylor for their helpful comments. Special acknowledgments
go to Remi Despres for his plentiful supports and suggestions,
especially about using NAT44 with IANA's EUI-64 ID. We also would
like to thank Fred Baker and Joel Jaeggli for their support.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic]
Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-11 (work in
progress), July 2012.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
BCP 152, RFC 5625, August 2009.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
January 2011.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
April 2011.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T.,
Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, January 2012.
[TS.23203] 3GPP, "Policy and charging control architecture", 3GPP
TS 23.203 10.7.0, June 2012.
Appendix A. Examples of IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation
The following is a example of IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation on the
464XLAT architecture.
In the case that an IPv6 prefix greater than /64 is assigned to an
end user by such as DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633], the CLAT can use a dedicated
/64 from the assigned IPv6 prefix.
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
Host & configuration value
+------------------------------+
| IPv4 server |
| [198.51.100.1] | IP packet header
+------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
^ | Destination IP address |
| | [198.51.100.1] |
| | Source IP address |
| | [192.0.2.1] |
+------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| PLAT | ^
| IPv4 pool address | |
| [192.0.2.1 - 192.0.2.100] | |
| PLAT-side XLATE IPv6 prefix | |
| [2001:db8:1234::/96] | |
+------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
^ | Destination IP address |
| | [2001:db8:1234::198.51.100.1] |
| | Source IP address |
| | [2001:db8:aaaa::192.168.1.2] |
+------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| CLAT | ^
| PLAT-side XLATE IPv6 prefix | |
| [2001:db8:1234::/96] | |
| CLAT-side XLATE IPv6 prefix | |
| [2001:db8:aaaa::/96] | |
+------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
^ | Destination IP address |
| | [198.51.100.1] |
| | Source IP address |
| | [192.168.1.2] |
+------------------------------+ +--------------------------------+
| IPv4 client |
| [192.168.1.2/24] |
+------------------------------+
Delegated IPv6 prefix for client: 2001:db8:aaaa::/56
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 464XLAT September 2012
Authors' Addresses
Masataka Mawatari
Japan Internet Exchange Co.,Ltd.
KDDI Otemachi Building 19F, 1-8-1 Otemachi,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0004
JAPAN
Phone: +81 3 3243 9579
Email: mawatari@jpix.ad.jp
Masanobu Kawashima
NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd.
800, Shimomata
Kakegawa-shi, Shizuoka 436-8501
JAPAN
Phone: +81 537 23 9655
Email: kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com
Cameron Byrne
T-Mobile USA
Bellevue, Washington 98006
USA
Email: cameron.byrne@t-mobile.com
Mawatari, et al. Expires March 22, 2013 [Page 14]
