draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09.txt | draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-10.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Internet Engineering Task Force G. Chen | Internet Engineering Task Force G. Chen | |||
Internet-Draft Z. Cao | Internet-Draft Z. Cao | |||
Intended status: Informational China Mobile | Intended status: Informational China Mobile | |||
Expires: July 17, 2014 C. Xie | Expires: September 11, 2014 C. Xie | |||
China Telecom | China Telecom | |||
D. Binet | D. Binet | |||
France Telecom-Orange | France Telecom-Orange | |||
January 13, 2014 | March 10, 2014 | |||
NAT64 Operational Experience | NAT64 Deployment Options and Experience | |||
draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-09 | draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-10 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document summarizes NAT64 function deployment scenarios and | This document summarizes NAT64 function deployment scenarios and | |||
operational experience. Both NAT64 Carrier Grade NAT (NAT64-CGN) and | operational experience. Both NAT64 Carrier Grade NAT (NAT64-CGN) and | |||
NAT64 server Front End (NAT64-FE) are considered in this document. | NAT64 server Front End (NAT64-FE) are considered in this document. | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 | skipping to change at page 1, line 36 | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 17, 2014. | This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2014. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 | skipping to change at page 2, line 26 | |||
3.1.4. Co-existence of NAT64 and NAT44 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.1.4. Co-existence of NAT64 and NAT44 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3.2. NAT64-FE Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.2. NAT64-FE Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
4. High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4. High Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.1. Redundancy Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4.1. Redundancy Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
4.2. Load Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.2. Load Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
5. Source Address Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5. Source Address Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
5.1. Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5.1. Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
5.2. Geo-location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5.2. Geo-location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
6. Quality of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 6. Quality of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
6.1. Service Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 6.1. Service Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
6.2. Resource Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 6.2. Resource Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
7. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 7. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
8. ULA Usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 8. ULA Usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
12. Additional Author List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 12. Additional Author List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
Appendix A. Testing Results of Application Behavior . . . . . . 21 | Appendix A. Testing Results of Application Behavior . . . . . . 20 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
IPv6 is the only sustainable solution for numbering nodes on Internet | IPv6 is the only sustainable solution for numbering nodes on Internet | |||
due to the IPv4 depletion. Network operators have to deploy | due to the IPv4 depletion. Network operators have to deploy | |||
IPv6-only networks in order to meet the needs of the expanding | IPv6-only networks in order to meet the needs of the expanding | |||
internet without available IPv4 addresses. | internet without available IPv4 addresses. | |||
Single stack IPv6 network deployment can simplify networks | Single-stack IPv6 network deployment can simplify networks | |||
provisioning. Some justifications have been described in 464xlat | provisioning, some justification was provided in 464xlat [RFC6877]. | |||
[RFC6877]. As an example, IPv6-only connectivity confers some | IPv6-only connectivity confers some benefits to mobile operators as | |||
benefits to mobile operators. In such mobile context, it enables the | an example. In the mobile context, IPv6-only usage enables the use | |||
use of a single IPv6 Packet Data Protocol(PDP) context or Evolved | of a single IPv6 Packet Data Protocol(PDP) context or Evolved Packet | |||
Packet System (EPS) bearer if Long Term Evolution (LTE) network is | System (EPS) bearer on Long Term Evolution (LTE) networks. This | |||
considered, which eliminates significant network costs caused by | eliminates significant network costs caused by employing two PDP | |||
doubling the number of PDP contexts in some cases and the need of | contexts in some cases, and the need for IPv4 addresses to be | |||
IPv4 addresses to be assigned to customers. In broadband networks | assigned to customers. In broadband networks overall, it can allow | |||
overall, it can allow for the scaling of edge-network growth | for the scaling of edge-network growth to be decoupled from IPv4 | |||
decoupled from IPv4 numbering limitations. | numbering limitations. | |||
In a transition scenario, some existing networks are likely to be | In transition scenarios, some existing networks are likely to be | |||
IPv4-only configured for quite a long time. IPv6 networks and hosts | IPv4-only for quite a long time. IPv6 networks and hosts IPv6-only | |||
will need to coexist with IPv4 numbered resources. Widespread dual- | hosts will need to coexist with IPv4 numbered resources. Widespread | |||
stack deployments have not materialized at the anticipated rate over | dual-stack deployments have not materialized at the anticipated rate | |||
the last 10 years, one possible conclusion being that legacy networks | over the last 10 years, one possible conclusion being that legacy | |||
will not make the jump quickly. The Internet will include nodes that | networks will not make the jump quickly. The Internet will include | |||
are dual-stack, nodes that remain IPv4-only, and nodes that can be | nodes that are dual-stack, nodes that remain IPv4-only, and nodes | |||
deployed as IPv6-only nodes. A translation mechanism based on a | that can be deployed as IPv6-only nodes. A translation mechanism | |||
NAT64[RFC6146] [RFC6145]function is likely to be a key element of the | based on a NAT64[RFC6146] [RFC6145]function is likely to be a key | |||
Internet for IPv6-IPv4 interoperability. | element of Internet connectivity for IPv6-IPv4 interoperability. | |||
[RFC6036] reports at least 30% of operators plan to run some kind of | [RFC6036] reports at least 30% of operators plan to run some kind of | |||
translator (presumably NAT64/DNS64). Advice on NAT64 deployment and | translator (presumably NAT64/DNS64). Advice on NAT64 deployment and | |||
operations are therefore of some importance. [RFC6586] documents the | operations are therefore of some importance. [RFC6586] documents the | |||
implications for IPv6 only networks. This document intends to be | implications for IPv6 only networks. This document intends to be | |||
specific to NAT64 network planning. | specific to NAT64 network planning. | |||
2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
In regards to IPv4/IPv6 translation, [RFC6144] has described a | Regarding IPv4/IPv6 translation, [RFC6144] has described a framework | |||
framework of enabling networks to make interworking possible between | for enabling networks to make interworking possible between IPv4 and | |||
IPv4 and IPv6 networks. This document has further categorized | IPv6 networks. This document has further categorized different NAT64 | |||
different NAT64 function locations and use cases. The principle | functions, locations and use-cases. The principle distinction of | |||
distinction of location is if the NAT64 is located in a Carrier Grade | location is whether the NAT64 is located in a Carrier Grade NAT or | |||
NAT or server Front End. The terms of NAT-CGN/FE are understood to be | server Front End. The terms of NAT-CGN/FE are understood to be a | |||
a topological distinction indicating different features employed in a | topological distinction indicating different features employed in a | |||
NAT64 deployment. | NAT64 deployment. | |||
NAT64 Carrier Grade NAT (NAT64-CGN): A NAT64-CGN is placed in an ISP | NAT64 Carrier Grade NAT (NAT64-CGN): A NAT64-CGN is placed in an ISP | |||
network. IPv6 subscribers leverage the NAT64-CGN to access | network. IPv6 enabled subscribers leverage the NAT64-CGN to | |||
existing IPv4 internet services. The ISP as an administrative | access existing IPv4 internet services. The ISP as an | |||
entity takes full control on the IPv6 side, but has limited or no | administrative entity takes full control of the IPv6 side, but has | |||
control on the IPv4 side. NAT64-CGN may have to consider the IPv4 | limited or no control on the IPv4 internet side. NAT64-CGN | |||
Internet environment and services to make appropriate | deployments may have to consider the IPv4 Internet environment and | |||
configurations. | services, and make appropriate configuration choices accordingly. | |||
NAT64 server Front End (NAT64-FE): A NAT64-FE is generally a device | NAT64 server Front End (NAT64-FE): A NAT64-FE is generally a device | |||
with NAT64 functionality in a content provider or data center | with NAT64 functionality in a content provider or data center | |||
network. It could be for example a traffic load balancer or a | network. It could be for example a traffic load balancer or a | |||
firewall. The operator of the NAT64-FE has full control over the | firewall. The operator of the NAT64-FE has full control over the | |||
IPv4 network within the data center, but only limited influence or | IPv4 network within the data center, but only limited influence or | |||
control over the external IPv6 network. | control over the external Internet IPv6 network. | |||
3. NAT64 Networking Experience | 3. NAT64 Networking Experience | |||
3.1. NAT64-CGN Consideration | 3.1. NAT64-CGN Consideration | |||
3.1.1. NAT64-CGN Usages | 3.1.1. NAT64-CGN Usages | |||
Fixed network operators and mobile operators may locate NAT64 in | Fixed network operators and mobile operators may locate NAT64 | |||
access networks or in mobile core networks. It can be built into | translators in access networks or in mobile core networks. It can be | |||
various devices, including routers, gateways or firewalls in order to | built into various devices, including routers, gateways or firewalls | |||
connect IPv6 users to the IPv4 Internet. With regard to the numbers | in order to connect IPv6 users to the IPv4 Internet. With regard to | |||
of users and the shortage of public IPv4 addresses, stateful | the numbers of users and the shortage of public IPv4 addresses, | |||
NAT64[RFC6146] is more adapted to perform some maximal sharing of | stateful NAT64[RFC6146] is more suited to maximize sharing of public | |||
public IPv4 addresses. The usage of stateless NAT64 can be seen with | IPv4 addresses. The usage of stateless NAT64 can provide better | |||
better transparency features | transparency features [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation], | |||
[I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation], while it has to be | but has to be coordinated with A+P[RFC6346] processes as specified in | |||
coordinated with A+P[RFC6346] processes as specified in | [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t] in order to address an IPv4 address | |||
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t] in order to cope with IPv4 shortage. | shortage. | |||
3.1.2. DNS64 Deployment | 3.1.2. DNS64 Deployment | |||
DNS64[RFC6147] is recommended for use in combination with stateful | DNS64[RFC6147] is recommended for use in combination with stateful | |||
NAT64, and will likely be an essential part of an IPv6 single-stack | NAT64, and will likely be an essential part of an IPv6 single-stack | |||
network that couples to the IPv4 Internet. 464xlat[RFC6877] is | network that couples to the IPv4 Internet. 464xlat[RFC6877] can | |||
proposed to enable access of IPv4 only applications or applications | enable access of IPv4 only applications or applications that call | |||
that call IPv4 literal addresses. Using DNS64 will help 464xlat to | IPv4 literal addresses. Using DNS64 will help 464xlat to | |||
automatically discover NAT64 prefix through [RFC7050]. Berkeley | automatically discover NAT64 prefix through [RFC7050]. Berkeley | |||
Internet Name Daemon (BIND) software supports the function. It's | Internet Name Daemon (BIND) software supports the function. It's | |||
important to note that DNS64 generates the synthetic AAAA reply when | important to note that DNS64 generates the synthetic AAAA reply when | |||
services only register A records. Operators should not expect to | services only provide A records. Operators should not expect to | |||
access IPv4 parts of a dual-stack server using NAT64/DNS64. The | access IPv4 parts of a dual-stack server using NAT64/DNS64. The | |||
traffic is forwarded on IPv6 paths if dual-stack servers are | traffic is forwarded on IPv6 paths if dual-stack servers are | |||
targeted. IPv6 traffic may be routed not going through NAT64. Only | targeted. IPv6 traffic may be routed around rather than going | |||
the traffic going to IPv4-only service would traverse NAT64. In some | through NAT64. Only the traffic going to IPv4-only service would | |||
sense, it encourages IPv6 transmission and restrains NAT uses | traverse the NAT64 translator. In some sense, it encourages IPv6 | |||
compared to NAT44(if used), on which all traffic flows have to be | usage and limits NAT translation compared to employing NAT44, where | |||
traversed and translated. In some cases, NAT64-CGN may serve double | all traffic flows have to be translated. In some cases, NAT64-CGNs | |||
roles, i.e. a translator and IPv6 forwarder. In mobile networks, | may serve double roles, i.e. as a translator and IPv6 forwarder. In | |||
NAT64 is likely deployed as the default gateway serving for all the | mobile networks, NAT64 may be deployed as the default gateway serving | |||
IPv6 traffic. The traffic heading to a dual-stack server is only | all the IPv6 traffic. The traffic heading to a dual-stack server is | |||
forwarded on the NAT64. Therefore, both IPv6 and IPv4 are suggested | only forwarded on the NAT64. Therefore, both IPv6 and IPv4 are | |||
to be configured on the Internet faced interfaces of NAT64. We | suggested to be configured on the Internet faced interfaces of NAT64. | |||
tested on Top100 websites (referring to [Alexa] statistics). 43% of | We tested on Top100 websites (referring to [Alexa] statistics). 43% | |||
websites are connected and forwarded on the NAT64 since those | of websites are connected and forwarded on the NAT64 since those | |||
websites have both AAAA and A records. With expansion of IPv6 | websites have both AAAA and A records. With expansion of IPv6 | |||
supports, the translation process on NAT64 will likely be faded. In | support, the translation process on NAT64 will likely become less- | |||
addition, it should be noted the DNS64-DNSSEC Interaction[RFC6147] | important over time. It should be noted the DNS64-DNSSEC | |||
may impact the DNS64 process. For example, DNS64 will not work with | Interaction[RFC6147] may impact validation of Resource Records | |||
the case, where there is a DNS query with the "DNSSEC OK" (DO) bit | retrieved from the the DNS64 process. In particular, DNSSEC | |||
set and the "Checking Disabled" (CD) bit set received. | validation will fail when DNS64 synthesizes AAAA records where there | |||
is a DNS query with the "DNSSEC OK" (DO) bit set and the "Checking | ||||
Disabled" (CD) bit set received. | ||||
3.1.3. NAT64 Placement | 3.1.3. NAT64 Placement | |||
All connections to IPv4 services from IPv6-only clients must traverse | All connections to IPv4 services from IPv6-only clients must traverse | |||
the NAT64-CGN. It can be advantageous from the vantage-point of | the NAT64-CGN. It can be advantageous from the vantage-point of | |||
troubleshooting and traffic engineering to carry the IPv6 traffic | troubleshooting and traffic engineering to carry the IPv6 traffic | |||
natively for as long as possible within an access network and | natively for as long as possible within an access network and | |||
translate packets only at or near the network egress. NAT64 can be | translate packets only at or near the network egress. NAT64 may be a | |||
considered as a feature of the Autonomous System (AS) border in fixed | feature of the Autonomous System (AS) border in fixed networks. It | |||
networks. And, it is likely to be deployed in an IP node beyond the | may be deployed in an IP node beyond the Gateway GPRS Support Node | |||
Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) or Public Data Network- Gateway | (GGSN) or Public Data Network- Gateway (PDN-GW) in mobile networks or | |||
(PDN-GW) in mobile networks or directly in the gateway itself in some | directly as part of the gateway itself in some situations. This | |||
situations. This allows consistent attribution and traceability | allows consistent attribution and traceability within the service | |||
within the service provider network. It has been observed that the | provider network. It has been observed that the process of | |||
process of correlating log information is problematic from multiple- | correlating log information is problematic from multiple-vendor's | |||
vendor's equipment due to inconsistent formats of log records. | equipment due to inconsistent formats of log records. Placing NAT64 | |||
Placing NAT64 in a centralized location may reduce diversity of log | in a centralized location may reduce diversity of log format and | |||
format and simplify the network provisioning. Moreover, since NAT64 | simplify the network provisioning. Moreover, since NAT64 is only | |||
is only targeted at serving traffic flows from IPv6 to IPv4-only | targeted at serving traffic flows from IPv6 to IPv4-only services, | |||
services, the user traffic volume should not be as high as in a NAT44 | the user traffic volume should not be as high as in a NAT44 scenario, | |||
scenario, and therefore, the gateway's capacity in such location may | and therefore, the gateway's capacity in such location may be less of | |||
not be as much of a concern or a hurdle to deployment. On the other | a concern or a hurdle to deployment. On the other-hand, placement in | |||
hand, the placement in a centralized way would require more strict | a centralized fashion would require more strict high availability | |||
high availability (HA) design. It would also make geo-location based | (HA) design. It would also make geo-location based on IPv4 addresses | |||
on IPv4 addresses rather inaccurate as it is currently the case for | rather inaccurate as is currently the case for NAT44 CGN already | |||
NAT44 CGN already deployed in ISP networks. More considerations or | deployed in ISP networks. More considerations or workarounds on HA | |||
workarounds on HA and traceability could be found at Section 4 and | and traceability could be found at Section 4 and Section 5. | |||
Section 5. | ||||
3.1.4. Co-existence of NAT64 and NAT44 | 3.1.4. Co-existence of NAT64 and NAT44 | |||
NAT64 could likely co-exist with NAT44 in a dual-stack network mostly | NAT64 will likely co-exist with NAT44 in a dual-stack network where | |||
because IPv4 private addresses are allocated to customers. The | IPv4 private addresses are allocated to customers. The coexistence | |||
coexistence has already appeared in mobile networks, in which dual | has already been observed in mobile networks, in which dual stack | |||
stack mobile phones normally initiate some dual-stack PDN/PDP | mobile phones normally initiate some dual-stack PDN/PDP Type[RFC6459] | |||
Type[RFC6459] to query both IPv4/IPv6 address and IPv4 allocated | to query both IPv4/IPv6 address and IPv4 allocated addresses are very | |||
addresses are very often private ones. [RFC6724] always prioritizes | often private ones. [RFC6724] always prioritizes IPv6 connections | |||
IPv6 connections regardless of whether the end-to-end path is native | regardless of whether the end-to-end path is native IPv6 or IPv6 | |||
IPv6 or IPv6 translated to IPv4 via NAT64/DNS64. Conversely, Happy | translated to IPv4 via NAT64/DNS64. Conversely, Happy | |||
Eyeballs[RFC6555] will direct some IP flows across IPv4 paths. The | Eyeballs[RFC6555] will direct some IP flows across IPv4 paths. The | |||
selection of IPv4/IPv6 paths may depend on particular implementation | selection of IPv4/IPv6 paths may depend on particular implementation | |||
choices or settings on a host-by-host basis, and may differ from an | choices or settings on a host-by-host basis, and may differ from an | |||
operator's deterministic scheme. Our tests verified that hosts may | operator's deterministic scheme. Our tests verified that hosts may | |||
find themselves switching between IPv4 and IPv6 paths as they access | find themselves switching between IPv4 and IPv6 paths as they access | |||
identical service, but at different times | identical service, but at different times | |||
[I-D.kaliwoda-sunset4-dual-ipv6-coexist]. Since the topology on each | [I-D.kaliwoda-sunset4-dual-ipv6-coexist]. Since the topology on each | |||
path is different, it may cause unstable user experiences and some | path is potentially different, it may cause unstable user experience | |||
degradation of Quality of Experience (QoE) when fallback to the other | and some degradation of Quality of Experience (QoE) when falling back | |||
protocol is not powerful enough. It's also difficult for operators | to the other protocol. It's also difficult for operators to find a | |||
to find a solution to make a stable network with optimal resource | solution to make a stable network with optimal resource utilization. | |||
utilization. In general, it's desirable to figure out the solution | In general, it's desirable to figure out the solution that will | |||
that will introduce IPv6/IPv4 translation service to IPv6-only hosts | introduce IPv6/IPv4 translation service to IPv6-only hosts connecting | |||
connecting to IPv4 servers while making sure dual-stack hosts to have | to IPv4 servers while making sure dual-stack hosts to have at least | |||
at least one address family accessible via native service if it's | one address family accessible via native service if possible. With | |||
possible. With the end-to-end native IPv6 environment is available, | the end-to-end native IPv6 environment available, hosts should be | |||
hosts should be upgraded aggressively to migrate to IPv6-only. There | upgraded aggressively to migrate in favor of IPv6-only. There are | |||
is an ongoing effort to detect host connectivity and propose new | ongoing efforts to detect host connectivity and propose a new DHCPv6 | |||
DHCPv6 option[I-D.wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure] to convey appropriate | option[I-D.wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure] to convey appropriate | |||
configuration information to the hosts. | configuration information to the hosts. | |||
3.2. NAT64-FE Consideration | 3.2. NAT64-FE Consideration | |||
Some Internet Content Providers (ICPs) may locate NAT64 in front of | Some Internet Content Providers (ICPs) may locate NAT64 in front of | |||
an Internet Data Center (IDC), for example co-located with load | an Internet Data Center (IDC), for example co-located with a load | |||
balancing function. Load balancers are employed to connect different | -balancing function. Load-balancers are employed to connect | |||
IP family domains, meanwhile distribute workloads across multiple | different IP family domains, and distribute workloads across multiple | |||
domains or internal servers actually. In some cases, IPv4 addresses | domains or internal servers. In some cases, IPv4 addresses | |||
exhaustion may not be a problem in some IDC's networks. IPv6 support | exhaustion may not be a problem in some IDC's internal networks. | |||
for some applications may require some investments and workloads so | IPv6 support for some applications may require some investments and | |||
IPv6 support may not be a priority. The use of NAT64 may be served | workloads so IPv6 support may not be a priority. The use of NAT64 | |||
to support widespread IPv6 adoption on the Internet while maintaining | may be served to support widespread IPv6 adoption on the Internet | |||
IPv4-only applications access. | while maintaining IPv4-only applications access. | |||
Different strategy has been described in [RFC6883] referred to as | Different strategy has been described in [RFC6883] referred to as | |||
"inside out" and "outside in". An IDC operator may implement the | "inside out" and "outside in". An IDC operator may implement the | |||
following practices in the NAT64-FE networking. | following practices in the NAT64-FE networking scenario. | |||
o Some ICPs who already have satisfactory operational experiences | o Some ICPs who already have satisfactory operational experience | |||
would adopt single stack IPv6 operations to build up their data | might adopt single stack IPv6 operation in building data-center | |||
center network, servers and applications since it allows new | networks, servers and applications, as it allows new services | |||
services delivery without having to integrate consideration of | delivery without having to integrate consideration of IPv4 NAT and | |||
IPv4 NAT and address limitations of IPv4 networks. Stateless | address limitations of IPv4 networks. Stateless NAT64[RFC6145] | |||
NAT64[RFC6145] is used to provide services for IPv4-only | can used to provide services for IPv4-only enabled customers. | |||
subscribers. [I-D.anderson-siit-dc] has provided further | [I-D.anderson-siit-dc] has provided further descriptions and | |||
descriptions and guidelines. | guidelines. | |||
o ICPs who attempt to offer customers IPv6 support in their | o ICPs who attempt to offer customers IPv6 support in their | |||
application farms at an early stage may likely run some proxies, | application farms at an early stage may likely run proxies load- | |||
which are configured to handle incoming IPv6 flows and proxy them | balancers or translators, which are configured to handle incoming | |||
to IPv4 back-end systems. Many load balancers have already | IPv6 flows and proxy them to IPv4 back-end systems. Many load | |||
integrated some proxy functionality. IPv4 addresses configured in | balancers integrate proxy functionality. IPv4 addresses | |||
the proxy can be multiplexed like a stateful NAT64 performs. A | configured in the proxy may be multiplexed like a stateful NAT64 | |||
similar challenge exists once increasingly numerous users in IPv6 | translator. A similar challenge exists once increasingly numerous | |||
Internet access an IPv4 network. High loads on load-balancers may | users in IPv6 Internet access an IPv4 network. High loads on | |||
be apt to cause additional latency, IPv4 pool exhaustion, etc. | load-balancers may be apt to cause additional latency, IPv4 pool | |||
Therefore, this approach is only reasonable at an early stage. | exhaustion, etc. Therefore, this approach is only reasonable at | |||
ICPs may learn from the experiences and move on to dual-stack or | an early stage. ICPs may employ dual-stack or IPv6 single stack | |||
IPv6 single stack in a further stage, since the native IPv6 is | in a further stage, since the native IPv6 is frequently more | |||
always more desirable than transition solutions. | desirable than any of the transition solutions. | |||
[RFC6144] recommends that AAAA records of load-balancers or | [RFC6144] recommends that AAAA records of load-balancers or | |||
application servers can be directly registered in the authoritative | application servers can be directly registered in the authoritative | |||
DNS servers requiring to populate these servers with corresponding | DNS servers. In this case, there is no need to deploy DNS64 name- | |||
AAAA records. In this case, there is no need to deploy DNS64 | servers. Those AAAA records can point to natively assigned IPv6 | |||
servers. Those AAAA records can be some native IPv6 addresses or | addresses or IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses[RFC6052]. Hosts are not | |||
some IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses[RFC6052]. The type of IPv6 | aware of the NAT64 translator on communication path. For the testing | |||
address does not give the possibility to nodes to get any information | purpose, operators could employ an independent sub domain e.g. | |||
about NAT64 presence on communication path and the possibility to | ||||
prefer IPv4 path or the IPv6 path in dual-stack networks. For the | ||||
testing purpose, operators could use an independent sub domain e.g. | ||||
ipv6exp.example.com to identify experimental ipv6 services to users. | ipv6exp.example.com to identify experimental ipv6 services to users. | |||
How to design the FQDN for the IPv6 service is out-of-scope of this | How to design the FQDN for the IPv6 service is out-of-scope of this | |||
document. | document. | |||
4. High Availability | 4. High Availability | |||
4.1. Redundancy Design | 4.1. Redundancy Design | |||
High Availability (HA) is a major requirement for every service and | High Availability (HA) is a major requirement for every service and | |||
network services. The deployment of redundancy mechanism is an | network services. The deployment of redundancy mechanisms is an | |||
essential approach to avoid single-point failure and significantly | essential approach to avoid failure and significantly increase the | |||
increase the network reliability. It's not only useful to stateful | network reliability. It's not only useful to stateful NAT64 cases, | |||
NAT64 cases, but also to stateless NAT64 gateways. | but also to stateless NAT64 gateways. | |||
Three redundancy modes are mainly used hereafter: cold standby, warm | Three redundancy modes are mainly used: cold standby, warm standby | |||
standby and hot standby. | and hot standby. | |||
o Cold standby can't replicate the NAT64 states from the primary | o Cold standby HA devices do not replicate the NAT64 states from the | |||
equipment to the backup. Administrators switch on the backup | primary equipment to the backup. Administrators switch on the | |||
NAT64 only if the primary NAT64 fails. As the results, all the | backup NAT64 only if the primary NAT64 fails. As a result, all | |||
existing established sessions will be disconnected. The internal | existing established sessions through a failed translator will be | |||
hosts are required to re-establish sessions to the external hosts. | disconnected. The translated flows will need to be recreated by | |||
Since the backup NAT64 is manually configured to switch over to | end-systems. Since the backup NAT64 is manually configured to | |||
active NAT64, it may have unpredictable impacts to the ongoing | switch over to active NAT64, it may have unpredictable impacts to | |||
services. Normally, the handover would take several minutes so as | the ongoing services. | |||
to wait for the whole process of NAT64 bootstrap loader. | ||||
o Warm standby is a flavor of the cold standby mode. Backup NAT64 | o Warm standby is a flavor of the cold standby mode. Backup NAT64 | |||
would keep running once the primary NAT64 is working. This makes | would keep running once the primary NAT64 is working. This makes | |||
warm standby less time consuming during the traffic failover. | warm standby less time consuming during the traffic failover. | |||
Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)[RFC5798] can be a | Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)[RFC5798] can be a | |||
solution to enable automatic handover in the warm standby. It was | solution to enable automatic handover in the warm standby. It was | |||
tested that the handover takes as maximum as 1 minute if the | tested that the handover takes as maximum as 1 minute if the | |||
backup NAT64 needs to take over routing and re-construct the | backup NAT64 needs to take over routing and re-construct the | |||
Binding Information Bases (BIBs) for 30 million sessions. In | Binding Information Bases (BIBs) for 30 million sessions. In | |||
deployment phase, operators could balance loads on distinct NAT64s | deployment phase, operators could balance loads on distinct NAT64s | |||
devices. Those NAT64s make a warm backup of each other. | devices. Those NAT64s make a warm backup of each other. | |||
o Hot standby must synchronize the BIBs between the primary NAT64 | o Hot standby must synchronize the BIBs between the primary NAT64 | |||
and backup. When the primary NAT64 fails, backup NAT64 would take | and backup. When the primary NAT64 fails, backup NAT64 would take | |||
over and maintain the state of all existing sessions. The | over and maintain the state of all existing sessions. The | |||
internal hosts don't have to re-connect the external hosts. The | internal hosts don't have to re-connect the external hosts. The | |||
handover time has been extremely reduced. Thanks to Bidirectional | handover time has been extremely reduced. Employing Bidirectional | |||
Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] combining with VRRP, a delay | Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880] combined with VRRP, a delay | |||
of only 35ms for 30 million sessions handover was observed during | of only 35ms for 30 million sessions handover was observed during | |||
testing. In some sense, it could guarantee the session continuity | testing. Under ideal conditions hotstandby deployments could | |||
for every service. In order to timely transmit session states, | guarantee the session continuity for every service. In order to | |||
operators may have to deploy extra transport links between primary | timely transmit session states, operators may have to deploy extra | |||
NAT64 and distant backup. The scale of synchronization data | transport links between primary NAT64 and distant backup. The | |||
instance is depending on the particular deployment. For example, | scale of synchronization data instance is depending on the | |||
If a NAT64-CGN is served for 200,000 users, the average amount of | particular deployment. For example, If a NAT64-CGN is served for | |||
800, 000 sessions per second is roughly estimated for new created | 200,000 users, the average amount of 800, 000 sessions per second | |||
and expired sessions. A physical 10Gbps transport link may have | is roughly estimated for new created and expired sessions. A | |||
to be deployed for the sync data transmission considering the | physical 10Gbps transport link may have to be deployed for the | |||
amount of sync sessions at the peak and capacity redundancy | sync data transmission considering the amount of sync sessions at | |||
the peak and capacity redundancy | ||||
In general, cold-standby and warm-standby is simpler and less | In general, cold-standby and warm-standby is simpler and less | |||
resource intensive, but it requires clients to re-establish sessions | resource intensive, but it requires clients to re-establish sessions | |||
when a fail-over occurs. Hot standby increases resource's | when a fail-over occurs. Hot standby increases resource consumption | |||
consumption to synchronize the states, but it achieve seamless | in order to synchronize state, but potentially achieves seamless | |||
handover. The consideration of redundancy mode for stateless NAT64 | handover. For stateless NAT64 considerations are simple, because | |||
is simple, because state synchronization is unnecessary. In regards | state synchronization is unnecessary. Regarding stateful NAT64, it | |||
to stateful NAT64, it may be useful to investigate performance | may be useful to investigate performance tolerance of applications | |||
tolerance of applications and the traffic characteristics in a | and the traffic characteristics in a particular network. Some | |||
particular network. Some testing results are shown in the | testing results are shown in the Appendix A. | |||
Appendix A. | ||||
Our statistics in a mobile network shown that almost 91.21% of amount | Our statistics in a mobile network shown that almost 91.21% of of | |||
of traffic is accounted by browsing services. Those services don't | traffic is accounted by http/https services. These services | |||
require session continuity. The handover time of warm standby is | generally don't require session continuity. Hot-standby does not | |||
qualified to the delay tolerance. Hot-standby does not offer much | offer much benefit for those sessions on this point. In fixed | |||
benefit for those sessions on this point. In a fixed network, HTTP | networks, HTTP streaming, p2p and online games would be the major | |||
streaming, p2p and online games would be the major | traffic beneficiaries of hot-standby replication[Cisco-VNI]. | |||
traffic[Cisco-VNI]. Consideration should be given to the importance | Consideration should be given to the importance of maintaining | |||
of maintaining bindings for those sessions across failover. | bindings for those sessions across failover. Operators may also | |||
Operators may also consider the Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) | consider the Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) factors to deploy | |||
factors to deploy suitable redundancy mode. Warm standby may still | suitable redundancy mode. Warm standby may still be adopted to cover | |||
be adopted to cover most services while hot standby could be used to | most services while hot standby could be used to upgrade Quality of | |||
upgrade Quality of Experience (QoE) using DNS64 with different | Experience (QoE) using DNS64 to generate different synthetic | |||
synthetic responses for limited traffic. Further considerations are | responses for limited traffic or destinations. Further | |||
discussed at Section 6. | considerations are discussed at Section 6. | |||
4.2. Load Balancing | 4.2. Load Balancing | |||
Load balancing is used to accompany redundancy design so that better | Load balancing is used to accompany redundancy design so that better | |||
scalability and resiliency could be achieved. Stateless NAT64s allow | scalability and resiliency could be achieved. Stateless NAT64s allow | |||
asymmetric routing while anycast-based solutions are recommended in | asymmetric routing while anycast-based solutions are recommended in | |||
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-deployment]. The deployment of load balancing | [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-deployment]. The deployment of load balancing | |||
may make more sense to stateful NAT64s for the sake of single-point | may make more sense to stateful NAT64s for the sake of single-point | |||
failure avoidance. Since the NAT64-CGN and NAT64-FE have distinct | failure avoidance. Since the NAT64-CGN and NAT64-FE have distinct | |||
facilities, the following lists the considerations for each case. | facilities, the following lists the considerations for each case. | |||
o NAT64-CGN equipment doesn't implement load balancer functions on a | o NAT64-CGN equipment doesn't typically implement load-balancing | |||
board card. Therefore, the gateways have to resort to DNS64 or | functions onboard. Therefore, the gateways have to resort to | |||
internal host's behavior. Once DNS64 is deployed, the load | DNS64 or internal host's behavior. Once DNS64 is deployed, the | |||
balancing can be performed by synthesizing AAAA response with | load balancing can be performed by synthesizing AAAA response with | |||
different IPv6 prefixes. For the applications not requiring DNS | different IPv6 prefixes. For the applications not requiring DNS | |||
resolver, internal hosts could learn multiple IPv6 prefixes | resolver, internal hosts could learn multiple IPv6 prefixes | |||
through the approaches defined in[RFC7050] and then select one | through the approaches defined in[RFC7050] and then select one | |||
based on a given prefix selection policy. | based on a given prefix selection policy. | |||
o A dedicated Load Balancer could be deployed at front of a NAT64-FE | o A dedicated Load Balancer could be deployed at front of a NAT64-FE | |||
farm. Load Balancer uses proxy mode to redirect the flows to the | farm. Load Balancer uses proxy mode to redirect the flows to the | |||
appropriate NAT64 instance. Stateful NAT64s require a | appropriate NAT64 instance. Stateful NAT64s require a | |||
deterministic pattern to arrange the traffic in order to ensure | deterministic pattern to arrange the traffic in order to ensure | |||
outbound/inbound flows traverse the identical NAT64. Therefore, | outbound/inbound flows traverse the identical NAT64. Therefore, | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 | skipping to change at page 9, line 46 | |||
5.1. Traceability | 5.1. Traceability | |||
Traceability is required in many cases such as identifying malicious | Traceability is required in many cases such as identifying malicious | |||
attacks sources and accounting requirements. Operators are asked to | attacks sources and accounting requirements. Operators are asked to | |||
record the NAT64 log information for specific periods of time. In | record the NAT64 log information for specific periods of time. In | |||
our lab testing, the log information from 200,000 subscribers have | our lab testing, the log information from 200,000 subscribers have | |||
been collected from a stateful NAT64 gateway for 60 days. | been collected from a stateful NAT64 gateway for 60 days. | |||
Syslog[RFC5424] has been adopted to transmit log message from NAT64 | Syslog[RFC5424] has been adopted to transmit log message from NAT64 | |||
to a log station. Each log message contains transport protocol, | to a log station. Each log message contains transport protocol, | |||
source IPv6 address:port, translated IPv4 address: port and | source IPv6 address:port, translated IPv4 address: port and | |||
timestamp. It takes almost 125 bytes long in ASCII format. It has | timestamp. It takes almost 125 bytes in ASCII format. It has been | |||
been verified that the rate of traffic flow is around 72 thousand | verified that the rate of traffic flow is around 72 thousand flows | |||
flows per second and the volume of recorded information reaches up to | per second and the volume of recorded information reaches up to 42.5 | |||
42.5 terabytes in the raw format. The volume takes 29.07 terabytes | terabytes in the raw format. The volume is 29.07 terabytes in a | |||
in a compact format. Operators have to build up dedicated transport | compact format. At scale, operators have to build up dedicated | |||
links, storage system and servers for the purpose. | transport links, storage system and servers for the purpose of | |||
managing such logging. | ||||
There are also several implementations to mitigate the issue. For | There are also several improvements that can be made to mitigate the | |||
example, stateful NAT64 could configure with bulk port allocation | issue. For example, stateful NAT64 could configure with bulk port | |||
method. Once a subscriber creates the first session, a number of | allocation method. Once a subscriber creates the first session, a | |||
ports are pre-allocated. A bulk allocation message is logged | number of ports are pre-allocated. A bulk allocation message is | |||
indicating this allocation. Subsequent session creations will use | logged indicating this allocation. Subsequent session creations will | |||
one of the pre-allocated port and hence does not require logging. | use one of the pre-allocated port and hence does not require logging. | |||
The log volume in this case may be only one thousandth of dynamic | The log volume in this case may be only one thousandth of dynamic | |||
port allocation. Some implementations may adopt static port-range | port allocation. Some implementations may adopt static port-range | |||
allocations [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn] which eliminates | allocations [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn] which eliminates | |||
the need for per-subscriber logging. As a side effect, the IPv4 | the need for per-subscriber logging. As a side effect, the IPv4 | |||
multiplexing efficiency is decreased regarding to those methods. For | multiplexing efficiency is decreased regarding to those methods. For | |||
example, the utilization ratio of public IPv4 address is dropped | example, the utilization ratio of public IPv4 address is dropped | |||
approximately to 75% when NAT64 gateway is configured with bulk port | approximately to 75% when NAT64 gateway is configured with bulk port | |||
allocation (The lab testing allocates each subscriber with 400 | allocation (The lab testing allocates each subscriber with 400 | |||
ports). In addition, port-range based allocation should also | ports). In addition, port-range based allocation should also | |||
consider port randomization described in [RFC6056] . A trade-off | consider port randomization described in [RFC6056] . A trade-off | |||
among address multiplexing efficiency, logging storage compression | among address multiplexing efficiency, logging storage compression | |||
and port allocation complexity should be considered. More | and port allocation complexity should be considered. More | |||
discussions could be found in | discussions could be found in [I-D.chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation]. | |||
[I-D.chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation].Basically, the decision | The decision can balance usable IPv4 resources against investments in | |||
depends on usable IPv4 resource and investments of log systems. | log systems. | |||
5.2. Geo-location | 5.2. Geo-location | |||
IP addresses are usually used as inputs to geo-location services. | IP addresses are usually used as inputs to geo-location services. | |||
The use of address sharing will prevent these systems from resolving | The use of address sharing prevents these systems from resolving the | |||
the location of a host based on IP address alone. Applications that | location of a host based on IP address alone. Applications that | |||
assume such geographic information may not work as intended. The | assume such geographic information may not work as intended. The | |||
possible solutions listed in [RFC6967] are intended to bridge the | possible solutions listed in [RFC6967] are intended to bridge the | |||
gap. However, those solutions can only provide a sub-optimal | gap. However, those solutions can only provide a sub-optimal | |||
substitution to solve the problem of host identification, in | substitution to solve the problem of host identification, in | |||
particular it may not today solve problems with source identification | particular it may not today solve problems with source identification | |||
through translation. The following lists current practices to | through translation. The following lists current practices to | |||
mitigate the issue. | mitigate the issue. | |||
o Operators who adopt NAT64-FE may leverage the application layer | o Operators who adopt NAT64-FE may leverage the application layer | |||
proxies, e.g. X-Forwarded-For (XFF) | proxies, e.g. X-Forwarded-For (XFF) | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 17 | skipping to change at page 11, line 14 | |||
o The NAT64-CGN equipment may not implement XFF. Geo-location based | o The NAT64-CGN equipment may not implement XFF. Geo-location based | |||
on shared IPv4 address is rather inaccurate in that case. | on shared IPv4 address is rather inaccurate in that case. | |||
Operators could subdivide the outside IPv4 address pool so an IPv6 | Operators could subdivide the outside IPv4 address pool so an IPv6 | |||
address can be translated depending on their geographical | address can be translated depending on their geographical | |||
locations. As consequence, location information can be identified | locations. As consequence, location information can be identified | |||
from a certain IPv4 address range. [RFC6967] also enumerates | from a certain IPv4 address range. [RFC6967] also enumerates | |||
several options to reveal the host identifier. Each solution | several options to reveal the host identifier. Each solution | |||
likely has their-own specific usage. For the geo-location systems | likely has their-own specific usage. For the geo-location systems | |||
relying on a Radius database[RFC5580], we have investigated to | relying on a Radius database[RFC5580], we have investigated to | |||
deliver NAT64 BIBs and Session Table Entrys (STEs) to a Radius | deliver NAT64 BIBs and Session Table Entries (STEs) to a Radius | |||
server[I-D.chen-behave-nat64-radius-extension]. This method could | server[I-D.chen-behave-nat64-radius-extension]. This method could | |||
provide geo-location system with an internal IPv6 address to | provide geo-location system with an internal IPv6 address to | |||
identify each user. It can get along with [RFC5580] to convey | identify each user. It can get along with [RFC5580] to convey | |||
original source address through same message bus. | original source address through same message bus. | |||
6. Quality of Experience | 6. Quality of Experience | |||
6.1. Service Reachability | 6.1. Service Reachability | |||
NAT64 is providing a translation capability between IPv6 and IPv4 | NAT64 is providing a translation capability between IPv6 and IPv4 | |||
skipping to change at page 13, line 30 | skipping to change at page 13, line 25 | |||
helpful to minimize terminal battery consumption and reduce the | helpful to minimize terminal battery consumption and reduce the | |||
number of keep-alive messages to be sent by mobile terminal devices. | number of keep-alive messages to be sent by mobile terminal devices. | |||
Subscribers can also benefit from network reliability. It has been | Subscribers can also benefit from network reliability. It has been | |||
discussed that hot-standby offers satisfactory experience once outage | discussed that hot-standby offers satisfactory experience once outage | |||
of primary NAT64 is occurred. Operators may rightly be concerned | of primary NAT64 is occurred. Operators may rightly be concerned | |||
about the considerable investment required for NAT64 equipment | about the considerable investment required for NAT64 equipment | |||
relative to low ARPU income. For example, transport links may cost | relative to low ARPU income. For example, transport links may cost | |||
much, because primary NAT64 and backup are normally located at | much, because primary NAT64 and backup are normally located at | |||
different locations, separated by a relatively large distance. | different locations, separated by a relatively large distance. | |||
Additional maintenance has to be spent to ensure the connectivity | Additional cost has to be assumed to ensure the connectivity quality. | |||
quality. However, that may be necessary to some applications, which | However, that may be necessary to some applications, which are delay- | |||
are delay-sensitive and seek session continuity, for example on-line | sensitive and seek session continuity, for example on-line games and | |||
games and live-streaming. Operators may be able to get added-values | live-streaming. Operators may be able to get added-values from those | |||
from those services by offering first-class services. It can be pre- | services by offering first-class services. It can be pre-configured | |||
configured on the gateway to hot-standby modes depending on | on the gateway to hot-standby modes depending on subscriber's | |||
subscriber's profile. The rest of other sessions can be covered by | profile. The rest of other sessions can be covered by cold/warm | |||
cold/warm standby. | standby. | |||
7. MTU Considerations | 7. MTU Considerations | |||
IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an Maximum | IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an Maximum | |||
Transmission Unit (MTU) of 1280 octets or greater[RFC2460]. However, | Transmission Unit (MTU) of 1280 octets or greater[RFC2460]. However, | |||
in case of NAT64 translation deployment, some IPv4 MTU constrained | in case of NAT64 translation deployment, some IPv4 MTU constrained | |||
link will be used in some communication path and originating IPv6 | link will be used in some communication path and originating IPv6 | |||
nodes may therefore receive an ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) message, | nodes may therefore receive an ICMP Packet Too Big (PTB) message, | |||
reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280 bytes. The result would be | reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280 bytes. The result would be | |||
that IPv6 allows packets to contain a fragmentation header, without | that IPv6 allows packets to contain a fragmentation header, without | |||
skipping to change at page 19, line 11 | skipping to change at page 19, line 6 | |||
Anderson, T., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation in IPv6 Data | Anderson, T., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation in IPv6 Data | |||
Centre Environments", draft-anderson-siit-dc-00 (work in | Centre Environments", draft-anderson-siit-dc-00 (work in | |||
progress), November 2012. | progress), November 2012. | |||
[I-D.chen-behave-nat64-radius-extension] | [I-D.chen-behave-nat64-radius-extension] | |||
Chen, G. and D. Binet, "Radius Attributes for Stateful | Chen, G. and D. Binet, "Radius Attributes for Stateful | |||
NAT64", draft-chen-behave-nat64-radius-extension-00 (work | NAT64", draft-chen-behave-nat64-radius-extension-00 (work | |||
in progress), July 2013. | in progress), July 2013. | |||
[I-D.chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation] | [I-D.chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation] | |||
Chen, G., "Analysis of NAT64 Port Allocation Method", | Chen, G., Tsou, T., Donley, C., and T. Taylor, "Analysis | |||
draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-02 (work in | of NAT64 Port Allocation Method", draft-chen-sunset4-cgn- | |||
progress), July 2013. | port-allocation-03 (work in progress), February 2014. | |||
[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn] | [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn] | |||
Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., Sundaresan, K., | Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., Sundaresan, K., | |||
and O. Vautrin, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce | and O. Vautrin, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce | |||
Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments", draft-donley- | Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments", draft-donley- | |||
behave-deterministic-cgn-06 (work in progress), July 2013. | behave-deterministic-cgn-07 (work in progress), January | |||
2014. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-deployment] | [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-deployment] | |||
Qiong, Q., Chen, M., Chen, G., Tsou, T., and S. Perreault, | Qiong, Q., Chen, M., Chen, G., Tsou, T., and S. Perreault, | |||
"Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) - Deployment | "Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) - Deployment | |||
Considerations", draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-03 | Considerations", draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-03 | |||
(work in progress), October 2013. | (work in progress), October 2013. | |||
[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t] | [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t] | |||
Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Troan, O., Matsushima, S., and | Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Troan, O., Matsushima, S., and | |||
T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using | T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using | |||
Translation (MAP-T)", draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-04 (work | Translation (MAP-T)", draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-05 (work | |||
in progress), September 2013. | in progress), February 2014. | |||
[I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation] | [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation] | |||
Boucadair, M., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O., | Boucadair, M., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O., | |||
Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Carrier-side | Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Carrier-side | |||
Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions", draft-ietf- | Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions", draft-ietf- | |||
softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05 (work in progress), | softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05 (work in progress), | |||
November 2012. | November 2012. | |||
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations] | [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations] | |||
Liu, B., Jiang, S., and C. Byrne, "Recommendations of | Liu, B. and S. Jiang, "Recommendations of Using Unique | |||
Using Unique Local Addresses", draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage- | Local Addresses", draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage- | |||
recommendations-01 (work in progress), October 2013. | recommendations-02 (work in progress), February 2014. | |||
[I-D.kaliwoda-sunset4-dual-ipv6-coexist] | [I-D.kaliwoda-sunset4-dual-ipv6-coexist] | |||
Kaliwoda, A. and D. Binet, "Co-existence of both dual- | Kaliwoda, A. and D. Binet, "Co-existence of both dual- | |||
stack and IPv6-only hosts", draft-kaliwoda-sunset4-dual- | stack and IPv6-only hosts", draft-kaliwoda-sunset4-dual- | |||
ipv6-coexist-01 (work in progress), October 2012. | ipv6-coexist-01 (work in progress), October 2012. | |||
[I-D.wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure] | [I-D.wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure] | |||
Patil, P., Boucadair, M., Wing, D., and T. Reddy, "DHCPv6 | Patil, P., Boucadair, M., Wing, D., and T. Reddy, "DHCPv6 | |||
Dynamic Reconfiguration", draft-wing-dhc-dns- | Dynamic Reconfiguration", draft-wing-dhc-dns- | |||
reconfigure-02 (work in progress), September 2013. | reconfigure-02 (work in progress), September 2013. | |||
skipping to change at page 21, line 43 | skipping to change at page 21, line 37 | |||
+----------------+------------------------+-------------------------+ | +----------------+------------------------+-------------------------+ | |||
|Mail |30 seconds | No | | |Mail |30 seconds | No | | |||
+----------------+------------------------+-------------------------+ | +----------------+------------------------+-------------------------+ | |||
|Downloading |1 minutes | No | | |Downloading |1 minutes | No | | |||
+----------------+------------------------+-------------------------+ | +----------------+------------------------+-------------------------+ | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Gang Chen | Gang Chen | |||
China Mobile | China Mobile | |||
53A,Xibianmennei Ave., | Xuanwumenxi Ave. No.32, | |||
Xuanwu District, | Xuanwu District, | |||
Beijing 100053 | Beijing 100053 | |||
China | China | |||
Email: phdgang@gmail.com | Email: phdgang@gmail.com | |||
Zhen Cao | Zhen Cao | |||
China Mobile | China Mobile | |||
53A,Xibianmennei Ave., | Xuanwumenxi Ave. No.32, | |||
Xuanwu District, | Xuanwu District, | |||
Beijing 100053 | Beijing 100053 | |||
China | China | |||
Email: caozhen@chinamobile.com | Email: caozhen@chinamobile.com, zehn.cao@gmail.com | |||
Chongfeng Xie | Chongfeng Xie | |||
China Telecom | China Telecom | |||
Room 708 No.118, Xizhimenneidajie | Room 708 No.118, Xizhimenneidajie | |||
Beijing 100035 | Beijing 100035 | |||
P.R.China | P.R.China | |||
Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn | Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn | |||
David Binet | David Binet | |||
End of changes. 45 change blocks. | ||||
244 lines changed or deleted | 243 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |