Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack Lite
RFC 6908
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (March 2013; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yiu Lee , Roberta Maglione , Carl Williams , Christian Jacquenet , Mohamed Boucadair | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | Yong Cui | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6908 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Ted Lemon | ||
| IESG note | Yong Cui (cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn) is the Document Shepherd. | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Lee
Request for Comments: 6908 Comcast
Category: Informational R. Maglione
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
C. Williams
MCSR Labs
C. Jacquenet
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
March 2013
Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack Lite
Abstract
This document discusses the deployment issues of and the requirements
for the deployment and operation of Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite). This
document describes the various deployment considerations and
applicability of the DS-Lite architecture.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6908.
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 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
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. Overview ........................................................3
2. AFTR Deployment Considerations ..................................3
2.1. Interface Consideration ....................................3
2.2. MTU and Fragmentation Considerations .......................4
2.3. Logging at the AFTR ........................................4
2.4. Blacklisting a Shared IPv4 Address .........................5
2.5. AFTR's Policies ............................................5
2.5.1. Outgoing Policy .....................................5
2.5.2. Incoming Policy .....................................6
2.6. AFTR Impacts on Accounting Process .........................6
2.7. Reliability Considerations of AFTR .........................7
2.8. Strategic Placement of AFTR ................................8
2.9. AFTR Considerations for Geographically Aware Services ......8
2.10. Impacts on QoS Policy .....................................9
2.11. Port Forwarding Considerations ............................9
2.12. DS-Lite Tunnel Security ..................................10
2.13. IPv6-Only Network Considerations .........................10
3. B4 Deployment Considerations ...................................10
3.1. DNS Deployment Considerations .............................11
3.2. IPv4 Service Monitoring ...................................11
3.2.1. B4 Remote Management ...............................11
3.2.2. IPv4 Connectivity Check ............................11
4. Security Considerations ........................................12
5. Acknowledgements ...............................................12
6. References .....................................................12
6.1. Normative References ......................................12
6.2. Informative References ....................................12
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
1. Overview
DS-Lite [RFC6333] is a transition technique that enables operators to
multiplex public IPv4 addresses while provisioning only IPv6 to
users. DS-Lite is designed to continue offering IPv4 services while
operators upgrade their networks incrementally to IPv6. DS-Lite
combines IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire [RFC2473] and Network Address
Translator IPv4/IPv4 (NAT44) [RFC3022] to enable more than one user
to share a public IPv4 address.
While Appendix A of [RFC6333] explains how to deploy DS-Lite within
specific scenarios, the purpose of this document is to describe
problems that arise when deploying DS-Lite and what guidance should
be taken to mitigate those issues. The information is based on real
deployment experience and is compiled in one comprehensive document
so that operators aren't required to search through various RFCs
deciding which sections are applicable and impact their DS-Lite
deployment.
2. AFTR Deployment Considerations
2.1. Interface Consideration
Address Family Transition Router (AFTR) is a network element that is
deployed inside the operator's network. An AFTR can be a stand-alone
device or be embedded into a router. The AFTR is the IPv4-in-IPv6
tunnel termination point and the NAT44 device. It is deployed at the
IPv4-IPv6 network border where the tunnel interface is IPv6 and the
external NAT44 interface is IPv4. The Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4)
element [RFC6333] is a function implemented on a dual-stack-capable
node (either a host device or a home gateway) that creates a tunnel
to an AFTR. Although an operator can configure both softwire tunnel
termination and interface for NAT44 functions on a single physical
interface (yet, keep them logically separated), there are scenarios
we recommend to configure two individual interfaces (i.e., one
dedicated for IPv4 and one dedicated for IPv6) to segregate the
functions.
o The access network between the B4 and AFTR is an IPv6-only
network, and the network between the AFTR and IPv4 network is an
IPv4-only network. In this deployment scenario, the AFTR
interface to the IPv6-only network and the interface to the IPv4
network should use two physical interfaces on the AFTR.
o Operators may use Operations Support System (OSS) tools (e.g.,
Multi Router Traffic Grapher) to collect interface data packet
count information. If an operator wants to separate the softwire
function and NAT44 function on different physical interfaces for
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
collecting a data packet count, and the AFTR does not support
packet count for logical interfaces, they should use two physical
interfaces on the AFTR.
2.2. MTU and Fragmentation Considerations
DS-Lite is part tunneling protocol. Tunneling introduces overhead to
the packet and decreases the effective MTU size after encapsulation.
DS-Lite users may experience problems with applications such as not
being able to download Internet pages or transfer large files.
Since fragmentation and reassembly is not optimal, the operator
should do everything possible to eliminate the need for it. If the
operator uses simple IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire [RFC2473], it is
recommended that the MTU size of the IPv6 network between the B4 and
the AFTR accounts for the additional overhead (40 bytes). If the
access network MTU size is fixed and cannot be changed, the operator
should be aware that the B4 and the AFTR must support fragmentation
as defined in [RFC6333]. The operator should also be aware that
reassembly at the Tunnel Exit-Point is resource intensive as a large
number of B4 may terminate on the same AFTR. Scalability of the AFTR
is advised in this scenario.
2.3. Logging at the AFTR
A source-specific log is essential for backtracking specific hosts
when a problem is identified with one of the AFTR's NAT-ed addresses.
The source-specific log contains the B4 IPv6 source address,
transport protocol, source port, and source IPv4 address after it has
been NAT-ed. Using the source-specific log, operators can uniquely
identify a specific host when a DS-Lite host experiences problems
accessing the IPv4 network. To maximize IPv4 shared ratio, an
operator may configure a short timeout value for NAT44 entries. This
will result in a large number of logs created by the AFTR. For
operators who desire to aggregate the logs, they can configure the
AFTR to preallocate a range of ports to each B4. This range of ports
will be used in the NAT44 function, and the AFTR will create one log
entry for the whole port range. This aggregation can significantly
reduce the log size for source-specific logging.
Some operators may require logging both source and destination
information for a host's connections. This is called a destination-
specific log. A destination-specific log contains the B4's IPv6
address, transport protocol, source port, source IPv4 address after
it has been NAT-ed, destination port, and destination IPv4 address.
A destination-specific log is session-based; the operators should be
aware that they will not be able to aggregate log entries. When
using a destination-specific log, the operator must be careful of the
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
large number of log entries created by the AFTR. Some AFTR
implementations may keep the logs in their main memory. This may be
CPU and memory resource intensive. The operators should configure
the AFTR to periodically send logs to storage facility and then purge
them from the AFTR.
2.4. Blacklisting a Shared IPv4 Address
The AFTR is a NAT device. It enables multiple B4s to share a single
public IPv4 address. [RFC6269] discusses some considerations when
sharing an IPv4 address. When a public IPv4 address is blacklisted
by a remote peer, this may affect multiple users or hosts. Operators
deploying DS-Lite should be aware that Internet hosts may not be
aware that a given single IPv4 address is actually shared by multiple
B4s. A content provider might block services for a shared IPv4
address and this would then impact all B4s sharing this particular
IPv4 address. The operator would be likely to receive calls related
to service outage and would then need to take appropriate corrective
actions. [RFC6302] describes necessary information required to
identify a user or host in shared address environment. It is also
worth mention that [NAT-REVEAL] analyses different approaches to
identify a user or host in a shared address environment.
2.5. AFTR's Policies
There are two types of AFTR policies:
o Outgoing Policies apply to packets originating from B4 to the
AFTR. These policies should be provisioned on the AFTR's IPv6
interface that is connected to the B4s.
o Incoming Policies apply to packets originating from IPv4 networks
to B4s. These policies should be provisioned on the IPv4
interface connected to the IPv4 network.
2.5.1. Outgoing Policy
Outgoing Policies may include Access Control List (ACL) and Quality
of Service (QoS) settings. These policies control the packets from
B4s to the AFTR. For example, the operator may configure the AFTR
only to accept B4 connections that originated from specific IPv6
prefixes configured in the AFTR. More discussion of this use case
can be found in Section 2.12. An operator may configure the AFTR to
give priority to the packets marked by certain Differentiated
Services Code Point (DSCP) values [RFC2475]. Furthermore, an AFTR
may also apply an Outgoing Policy to limit the rate of port
allocation for a single B4's IPv6 address.
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
Some operators offer different service level agreements (SLAs) to
users to meet their requirements. Some users may require more ports
and some may require different service priority. In this deployment
scenario, the operator can implement Outgoing Policies specified to a
user's B4 or a group of B4s sharing the same policies.
2.5.2. Incoming Policy
Similar to the Outgoing Policy, an Incoming Policy may also include
ACL and QoS settings. The Outgoing Policy controls packets coming
from the IPv4 network to the B4s. Incoming packets are normally
treated equally, so these policies are globally applied. For
example, an operator wants to use a predefined DSCP value to signal
the IPv6 access network to apply certain traffic policies. In this
deployment scenario, the operator can configure the AFTR to mark the
incoming packets with the predefined DSCP value. This policy will
apply to all incoming packets from the IPv4 network.
2.6. AFTR Impacts on Accounting Process
This section discusses IPv4 and IPv6 traffic accounting in the
DS-Lite environment. In a typical broadband access scenario (e.g.,
DSL or Cable), the B4 is embedded in a Residential Gateway. The edge
router for the B4s in the provider's network is an IPv6 edge router.
The edge router is usually responsible for IPv6 accounting and the
user management functions such as authentication, authorization, and
accounting (AAA). However, given the fact that IPv4 traffic is
encapsulated in an IPv6 packet at the B4 and only decapsulated at the
AFTR, the edge router will require additional functionality to
associate IPv4 accounting information to the B4 IPv6 address. If
DS-Lite is the only application using the IPv4-in-IPv6 protocol in
the IPv6 access network, the operator can configure the edge router
to check the IPv6 Next Header field in the IPv6 header, identify the
protocol type (i.e., 0x04), and collect IPv4 accounting information.
Alternatively, the AFTR may perform accounting for IPv4 traffic.
However, operators must be aware that this will introduce some
challenges, especially in DSL deployment. In DSL deployment, the AAA
transaction normally happens between the edge router (i.e., Broadband
Network Gateway) and AAA server. [RFC6333] does not require the AFTR
to interact with the AAA server or edge router. Thus, the AFTR may
not have the AAA parameters (e.g., Account Session ID) associated
with B4s to generate an IPv4 accounting record. IPv4 traffic
accounting at the AFTR is not recommended when the AAA parameters
necessary to generate complete IPv4 accounting records are not
available. The accounting process at the AFTR is only necessary if
the operator requires separating per-B4 accounting records for IPv4
and IPv6 traffic. If the per-B4 IPv6 accounting records, collected
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
by the edge router, are sufficient, then the additional complexity of
enabling IPv4 accounting at the AFTR is not required. It is
important to notice that, since the IPv4 traffic is encapsulated in
IPv6 packets, the data collected by the edge router for IPv6 traffic
already contains the total amount of traffic (i.e., IPv4 and IPv6).
Even if detailed accounting records collection for IPv4 traffic may
not be required, it would be useful for an operator, in some
scenarios, to have information that the edge router generates for the
IPv6 traffic. This information can be used to identify the AFTR who
is handling the IPv4 traffic for that B4. This can be achieved by
adding additional information to the IPv6 accounting records. For
example, operators can use RADIUS attribute information specified in
[RFC6519] or a new attribute to be specified in Internet Protocol
Detailed Record (IPDR).
2.7. Reliability Considerations of AFTR
For robustness, reliability, and load distribution purposes,
operators may deploy multiple AFTRs. In such cases, the IPv6
prefixes and algorithm to build the tunneling mechanisms configured
on each of these AFTRs will be the same. In [RFC6333], Appendix A.3
mentions that High Availability (HA) is the operator's
responsibility. Since DS-Lite is a stateful mechanism, all
requirements for load-balancing and failover mechanisms apply. There
are many ways to implement HA in a stateful mechanism; the most
common are Cold Standby mode and Hot Standby mode. More discussion
on deploying these two modes for NAT can be found in [NAT-STANDBY].
In Cold Standby mode, the AFTR states are not replicated from the
Primary AFTR to the Backup AFTR. When the Primary AFTR fails, all
the existing established sessions will be flushed out. The internal
hosts are required to reestablish sessions with the external hosts.
In Hot Standby mode, the session's states are replicated on-the-fly
from the Primary AFTR to the Backup AFTR. When the Primary AFTR
fails, the Backup AFTR will take over all the existing established
sessions. In this mode, the internal hosts are not required to
reestablish sessions with the external hosts.
For operators, the decision to use Cold Standby mode or Hot Standby
mode depends on the trade-off between capital cost and operational
cost. Cold Standby mode does not require a Backup Standby AFTR to
synchronize session states. This simplifies the operational model.
When the Primary AFTR goes down, any AFTR with extra capacity can
take over. Hot Standby mode provides a smoother failover experience
to users; the cost for the operators is more careful failover
planning. For most deployment scenarios, we believe that Cold
Standby mode should be sufficient enough and is thus recommended.
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
2.8. Strategic Placement of AFTR
In the DS-Lite environment, the AFTR is the logical next-hop router
of the B4s to access the IPv4 network, so the placement of the AFTR
will affect the traffic flows in the access network and overall
network design. In general, there are two placement models to deploy
an AFTR. Model One deploys the AFTR at the edge of the network to
cover a small region. Model Two deploys the AFTR at the core of the
network to cover a large region.
When an operator considers where to deploy the AFTR, the operator
must make trade-offs. The AFTR in Model One serves fewer B4s; thus,
it requires a less powerful AFTR. Moreover, the traffic flows are
more evenly distributed to the AFTRs. However, it requires deploying
more AFTRs to cover the entire network. Often, the operation cost
increases proportionally with the amount of network equipment.
The AFTR in Model Two covers a larger area; thus, it serves more B4s.
The operator could deploy only a few AFTRs to support the entire user
base. However, this model requires a more powerful AFTR to sustain
the load at peak hours. Since the AFTR would support B4s from
different regions, the AFTR would be deployed closer to the core
network.
DS-Lite framework can be incrementally deployed. An operator may
consider starting with Model Two. When the demand increases, the
operator can push the AFTR closer to the edge, which would
effectively become Model One.
2.9. AFTR Considerations for Geographically Aware Services
By centralizing public IPv4 addresses in the AFTR, remote services
can no longer rely on an IPv4 address and IPv4 routing information to
derive a host's geographical information. For example, the IPv6
access network and the AFTR may be in two different cities. If the
remote services rely on the IPv4 address to locate a host, they may
have thought the host was in a different city. [RFC6269] Section 7
describes the problem in more detail. Applications could explicitly
ask users to enter location information, such as postal code or
telephone number, before offering geographical service. In contrast,
applications could use HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)
[RFC5985] to get the location information from the Location
Information Server and give this information to the remote peer.
[RFC6280] describes an architecture to enable location-based
services. However, to mitigate the impact, we recommend that
operators deploy the AFTR as close to B4s as possible.
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
2.10. Impacts on QoS Policy
This section describes the application of [RFC2983] to the DS-Lite
deployment model. Operators must ensure that the QoS policy that is
in place operates properly within the DS-Lite deployment. In this
regard, operators commonly use DSCP [RFC2475] to classify and
prioritize different types of traffic in their networks. DS-Lite
tunnel can be seen as a particular case of uniform conceptual tunnel
model, as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC2983]. The uniform model
views an IP tunnel only as a necessary mechanism to forward traffic
to its destination: the tunnel has no significant impact on traffic
conditioning. In this model, any packet has exactly one DSCP field
that is used for traffic conditioning at any point, and it is the
field in the outermost IP header. In the DS-Lite model, this is the
Traffic Class field in the IPv6 header. According to [RFC2983],
implementations of this model copy the DSCP value to the outer IP
header at encapsulation and copy the outer header's DSCP value to the
inner IP header at decapsulation.
Operators should use this model by provisioning the network such that
the AFTR copies the DSCP value in the IPv4 header to the Traffic
Class field in the IPv6 header, after the encapsulation for the
downstream traffic. Similarly, the B4 copies the DSCP value in the
IPv4 header to the Traffic Class field to the IPv6 header, after the
encapsulation for the upstream traffic. Traffic identification and
classification can be done by examining the outer IPv6 header in the
IPv6 access network.
2.11. Port Forwarding Considerations
Some applications behind the B4 require the B4 to accept incoming
requests. If the remote application wants to communicate to the
application behind the B4, the remote application must know both the
NAT-ed IPv4 address used by the B4 and the IPv4 destination port.
Some applications use Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) (e.g., popular
gaming consoles) or Interactive Community Establishment (ICE)
[RFC5245] to request incoming ports. Some applications rely on
Application Level Gateway (ALG) or manual port configuration to
reserve a port in the NAT. For the DS-Lite deployment scenario
whereby the B4 does not own a full IPv4 address, the operator will
manage port-forwarding in the serving AFTR. Operators may use Port
Control Protocol (PCP) [PCP-BASE] as guidance to provide port
forwarding service. Operators will deploy PCP client in the B4s.
PCP permits the PCP server to be deployed in a stand-alone server.
However, we recommend that operators consider deploying the PCP
server in the AFTR. This will ease the overhead to design a global
configuration for the PCP server for many AFTRs because each PCP
server will be dedicated to the collocated AFTR.
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
When sharing an IPv4 address, not all of the ports are available to a
B4. Some restricted ports (i.e., 0-1023) are well known such as TCP
port 25 and 80. Many users may want to be provisioned with the
restricted ports. For fairness, we recommend that operators
configure the AFTR and not allocate the restricted ports to regular
DS-Lite B4s. This operation model ensures that DS-Lite B4s will have
uniform configuration, which can simplify provisioning and operation.
For users who want to use the restricted ports, operators can
consider provisioning a full IPv4 address to those users' B4s. If an
operator still wants to provision restricted ports to specific B4s,
it may require implementing a static B4's configuration in the AFTR
to match the B4's IPv6 address to the NAT rules. Alternatively, the
B4 may dynamically allocate the ports, and the AFTR authenticates the
session's request using PCP [PCP-BASE].
2.12. DS-Lite Tunnel Security
[RFC6333], Section 11 describes security issues associated with the
DS-Lite mechanism. To restrict the service offered by the AFTR only
to registered B4s, an operator can implement the Outgoing Policy on
the AFTR's tunnel interface to accept only the IPv6 prefixes defined
in the policy. For static provisioning, the operator will need to
know in advance the IPv6 prefixes provisioned to the B4s for the
softwire in order to configure the policy. To simplify operation,
operators should configure the AFTRs in the same region with the same
IPv6 prefixes' Outgoing Policy. The AFTRs will accept both regular
connections and failover connections from the B4s in the same service
region.
2.13. IPv6-Only Network Considerations
In environments where the operator wants to deploy the AFTR in an
IPv6-only network, the AFTR nodes may not have direct IPv4
connectivity. In this scenario, the operator extends the IPv6-only
boundary to the border of the network and only the border routers
have IPv4 connectivity. For both scalability and performance
purposes, the AFTR is located in the IPv6-only network closer to B4s.
In this scenario, the AFTR has only IPv6 connectivity and must be
able to send and receive IPv4 packets. Enhancements to the DS-Lite
AFTR are required to achieve this. [DS-LITE] describes such issues
and enhancements to DS-Lite in IPv6-only deployments.
3. B4 Deployment Considerations
In order to configure the IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, the B4 needs the IPv6
address of the AFTR. This IPv6 address can be configured using a
variety of methods ranging from an out-of-band mechanism, manual
configuration, and DHCPv6 option to RADIUS. If an operator uses
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
DHCPv6 to provision the B4, the B4 must implement the DHCPv6 option
defined in [RFC6334]. If an operator uses RADIUS to provision the
B4, the B4 must implement [RFC6519].
3.1. DNS Deployment Considerations
[RFC6333] recommends that the B4 send DNS queries to an external
recursive resolver over IPv6. The B4 should implement a proxy
resolver that will proxy a DNS query from IPv4 transport to the DNS
server in the IPv6 network. [RFC6333] does not describe the DNS
proxy behavior. In deployment, the operator must ensure that the DNS
proxy implementation must follow [RFC5625]. This is important
especially for operators who have deployed, or will consider
deploying, DNSSEC [RFC4035].
Some operators may want to give hosts behind the B4 an IPv4 address
of an external DNS recursive resolver. The B4 will treat the DNS
packets as normal IP packets and forward them over the softwire.
Note that there is no effective way to provision an IPv4 DNS address
to the B4 over IPv6; operators who use this DNS deployment model must
be aware that how to provision an IPv4 DNS address over an IPv6
network is undefined, so it will introduce additional complexity in
B4 provisioning. Moreover, this will increase the load to the AFTR
by creating entries in the NAT table for DNS sessions. Operators may
deploy a local DNS caching resolver in the AFTR to reduce the load in
the NAT table. Nonetheless, this DNS model is not covered in
[RFC6333] and is not recommended.
3.2. IPv4 Service Monitoring
3.2.1. B4 Remote Management
B4 is connected to the IPv6 access network to offer IPv4 services.
When users experience IPv4 connectivity issues, operators must be
able to remotely access (e.g., TR-069) the B4 to verify its
configuration and status. Operators should access B4s using native
IPv6. Operators should not access B4 over the softwire.
3.2.2. IPv4 Connectivity Check
The DS-Lite framework provides IPv4 services over the IPv6 access
network. Operators and users must be able to check the IPv4
connectivity from the B4 to its AFTR using ping and IPv4 traceroute.
The AFTR should be configured with an IPv4 address to enable a PING
test and a Traceroute test. Operators should assign the same IPv4
address (e.g., 192.0.0.2/32 [RFC6333]) to all AFTRs. IANA has
allocated the 192.0.0.0/29 network prefix to provide IPv4 addresses
for this purpose [RFC6333].
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
4. Security Considerations
This document does not present any new security issues. [RFC6333]
discusses DS-Lite related security issues.
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mr. Nejc Skoberne and Dr. Maoke Chen for their thorough
review and helpful comments. We also want to thank Mr. Hu Jie for
sharing his DS-Lite deployment experience with us. He gave us
recommendations of what his company learned while testing DS-Lite in
the production network.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee,
"Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6334] Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for
Dual-Stack Lite", RFC 6334, August 2011.
[RFC6519] Maglione, R. and A. Durand, "RADIUS Extensions for
Dual-Stack Lite", RFC 6519, February 2012.
6.2. Informative References
[DS-LITE] Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Grimault, J., Kassi-
Lahlou, M., Levis, P., Cheng, D., and Y. Lee,
"Deploying Dual-Stack Lite in IPv6 Network", Work in
Progress, April 2011.
[NAT-REVEAL] Boucadair, M., Touch, J., Levis, P., and R. Penno,
"Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host
Identifier (HOST_ID) in Shared Address Deployments",
Work in Progress, March 2013.
[NAT-STANDBY] Xu, X., Boucadair, M., Lee, Y., and G. Chen,
"Redundancy Requirements and Framework for Stateful
Network Address Translators (NAT)", Work in Progress,
October 2010.
[PCP-BASE] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", Work in
Progress, November 2012.
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang,
Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, October 2000.
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
January 2001.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and
S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
April 2010.
[RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
BCP 152, RFC 5625, August 2009.
[RFC5985] Barnes, M., "HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)",
RFC 5985, September 2010.
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.
[RFC6280] Barnes, R., Lepinski, M., Cooper, A., Morris, J.,
Tschofenig, H., and H. Schulzrinne, "An Architecture
for Location and Location Privacy in Internet
Applications", BCP 160, RFC 6280, July 2011.
[RFC6302] Durand, A., Gashinsky, I., Lee, D., and S. Sheppard,
"Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers",
BCP 162, RFC 6302, June 2011.
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 6908 Deployment Considerations for DS-Lite March 2013
Authors' Addresses
Yiu L. Lee
Comcast
One Comcast Center
Philadelphia, PA 19103
U.S.A.
EMail: yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Roberta Maglione
Cisco Systems
181 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5J 2T3
Canada
EMail: robmgl@cisco.com
Carl Williams
MCSR Labs
U.S.A.
EMail: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom
Rennes
France
EMail: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes
France
EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Lee, et al. Informational [Page 14]