GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6889

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Penno Request for Comments: 6889 Cisco Systems, Inc. Category: Informational T. Saxena ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems

                                                          M. Boucadair
                                                        France Telecom
                                                          S. Sivakumar
                                                         Cisco Systems
                                                            April 2013
                Analysis of Stateful 64 Translation

Abstract

 Due to specific problems, Network Address Translation - Protocol
 Translation (NAT-PT) was deprecated by the IETF as a mechanism to
 perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  Since then, new efforts have been
 undertaken within IETF to standardize alternative mechanisms to
 perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  This document analyzes to what extent
 the new stateful translation mechanisms avoid the problems that
 caused the IETF to deprecate NAT-PT.

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/rfc6889.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 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.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   1.1.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   1.2.  Context  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.3.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
 2.  Analysis of 64 Translation against Concerns of RFC 4966  . . .  4
   2.1.  Problems Impossible to Solve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2.  Problems That Can Be Solved  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.3.  Problems Solved  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
 3.  Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1. Introduction

1.1. Definition

 This document uses stateful 64 (or 64 for short) to refer to the
 mechanisms defined in the following documents:
 o  IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm [RFC6145]
 o  Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
    Clients to IPv4 Servers [RFC6146]
 o  DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6
    Clients to IPv4 Servers [RFC6147]

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 o  IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators [RFC6052]
 o  Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation [RFC6144]

1.2. Context

 Stateful 64 is widely seen as a major interconnection technique
 designed to enable communications between IPv6-only and IPv4-only
 networks.  One of the building blocks of the stateful 64 is
 decoupling the DNS functionality from the protocol translation
 itself.
 This approach is pragmatic in the sense that there is no dependency
 on DNS implementation for the successful NAT handling.  As long as
 there is a function (e.g., DNS64 [RFC6147] or other means) that can
 construct an IPv6-embedded IPv4 address with a pre-configured IPv6
 prefix, an IPv4 address and a suffix (refer to [RFC6052]), NAT64 will
 work just fine.
 The focus of the stateful 64 is on the deployment and not the
 implementation details.  As long as a NAT64 implementation conforms
 to the expected behavior, as desired in the deployment scenario, the
 details are not very important as mentioned in this excerpt from
 [RFC6146]:
    A NAT64 MAY perform the steps in a different order, or MAY perform
    different steps, but the externally visible outcome MUST be the
    same as the one described in this document.

1.3. Scope

 This document provides an analysis of how the proposed set of
 documents that specify stateful IPv6-only to IPv4-only translation
 and replace Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation
 (NAT-PT) [RFC2766] address the issues raised in [RFC4966].
 As a reminder, it is worth mentioning the analysis is limited in the
 sense that hosts from IPv6 networks can initiate a communication to
 IPv4 network/Internet, but not vice versa.  This corresponds to
 Scenarios 1 and 5 described in [RFC6144].  Hence, the scenario of
 servers moving to IPv6 while clients remaining IPv4 remains
 unaddressed.  Of course, IPv6-to-IPv4 communications can also be
 supported if static or explicit bindings (e.g., [RFC6887]) are
 configured on the stateful NAT64.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 Stateful 64, just like any other technique under development, has
 some positives and some drawbacks.  The ups and downs of the proposal
 must be clearly understood while going forward with its future
 development.
 The scope of this document does not include stateless translation.

2. Analysis of 64 Translation against Concerns of RFC 4966

 Of the set of problems pointed out in [RFC4966], the stateful 64
 addresses some of them, whereas it leaves others unaddressed.
 Some issues mentioned in [RFC4966] were solved by [RFC4787],
 [RFC5382], and [RFC5508].  At the time when NAT-PT was published,
 these recommendations were not in place but they are orthogonal to
 the translation algorithm per se; therefore, they could be
 implemented with NAT-PT.  On the other hand, NAT64 [RFC6146]
 explicitly mentions that these recommendations need to be followed
 and thus should be seen as a complete specification.
 It is also worth pointing out that the scope of the stateful 64 is
 reduced when compared to NAT-PT.  Following is a point-by-point
 analysis of the problems.  This document classifies the issues listed
 in [RFC4966] into three categories:
 1.  Problems impossible to solve.
 2.  Problems that can be solved.
 3.  Problems solved.

2.1. Problems Impossible to Solve

 Problems discussed in [RFC4966] that are impossible to solve:
 1.  Inability to redirect traffic for protocols that lack de-
     multiplexing capabilities or are not built on top of specific
     transport-layer protocols for transport address translations
     (Section 2.2 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This issue is not specific to 64 but to all NAT-
        based solutions.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 2.  Loss of information due to incompatible semantics between IPv4
     and IPv6 versions of headers and protocols (Section 2.4 of
     [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This issue is not specific to 64 but is due to the
        design of IPv4 and IPv6.
 3.  Need for the NAT64-capable device to act as proxy for
     correspondent node when IPv6 node is mobile, with consequent
     restrictions on mobility (Section 2.7 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This is not specific to NAT64 but to all NAT
        flavors.  Refer to [NAT64-HARMFUL] for an early analysis on
        mobility complications encountered when NAT64 is involved.

2.2. Problems That Can Be Solved

 Problems discussed in [RFC4966] that can be solved:
 1.  Disruption of all protocols that embed IP addresses (and/or
     ports) in packet payloads or apply integrity mechanisms using IP
     addresses (and ports) (Section 2.1 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: In the case of FTP [RFC0959], this problem can be
        mitigated in several ways (e.g., use a FTP64 Application Layer
        Gateway (ALG) [RFC6384] or in the FTP client (e.g., [FTP64])).
        In the case of SIP [RFC3261], no specific issue is induced by
        64; the same techniques for NAT traversal can be used when a
        NAT64 is involved in the path (e.g., Interactive Connectivity
        Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245], maintain SIP-related NAT
        bindings as per Section 3.4 of [RFC5853], media latching
        [MIDDLEBOXES], embedded SIP ALGs, etc.).  [RFC6157] provides
        more discussion on how to establish SIP sessions between IPv4
        and IPv6 SIP user agents.
        The functioning of other protocols is left for future study.
        Note that the traversal of NAT64 by application embedding IP
        address literal is not specific to NAT64 but generic to all
        NAT-based solutions.
 2.  Interaction with Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
     [RFC4960] and multihoming (Section 2.6 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: Only TCP and UDP transport protocols are within the
        scope of NAT64 [RFC6146].  SCTP is out of scope of this
        document.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 3.  Inability to handle multicast traffic (Section 2.8 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This problem is not addressed by the current 64
        specifications.
 4.  Scalability concerns together with introduction of a single point
     of failure and a security attack nexus (Section 3.2 of
     [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This is not specific to NAT64 but to all stateful
        NAT flavors.  The presence of a single point of failure is
        deployment-specific; some service providers may deploy state
        synchronization means while others may only rely on a
        distributed NAT64 model.
 5.  Restricted validity of translated DNS records: a translated
     record may be forwarded to an application that cannot use it
     (Section 4.2 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: If a node on the IPv4 side forwards the address of
        the other endpoint to a node that cannot reach the NAT box or
        is not covered under the endpoint-independent constraint of
        NAT, then the new node will not be able to initiate a
        successful session.
        Actually, this is not a limitation of 64 (or even NAT-PT) but
        a deployment context where IPv4 addresses managed by the NAT64
        are not globally reachable.  The same limitation can be
        encountered when referrals (even without any NAT in the path)
        include reachability information with limited reachability
        scope (see [REFERRAL] for more discussion about issues related
        to reachability scope).
 6.  IPsec traffic using AH (Authentication Header) [RFC4302] in both
     transport and tunnel modes cannot be carried through NAT-PT
     without terminating the security associations on the NAT-PT, due
     to the inclusion of IP header fields in the scope of AH's
     cryptographic integrity protection [RFC3715] (Section 2.1 of
     [RFC4966]).  In addition, IPsec traffic using ESP (Encapsulating
     Security Payload) [RFC4303] in transport mode generally uses UDP
     encapsulation [RFC3948] for NAT traversal (including NAT-PT
     traversal) in order to avoid the problems described in [RFC3715]
     (Section 2.1 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This is not specific to NAT64 but to all NAT
        flavors.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 7.  Address selection issues when either the internal or external
     hosts implement both IPv4 and IPv6 (Section 4.1 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This is out of scope of 64 since Scenarios 1 and 5
        of [RFC6144] assume IPv6-only hosts.
        Therefore, this issue is not resolved and mitigation
        techniques outside the 64 need to be used (e.g.,
        [ADDR-SELECT]).  These techniques may allow one to offload
        NAT64 resources and prefer native communications that do not
        involve address family translation.  Avoiding NAT devices in
        the path is encouraged for mobile nodes in order to save power
        consumption due to keepalive messages that are required to
        maintain NAT states ("always-on" services).  An in-depth
        discussion can be found in [DNS64].

2.3. Problems Solved

 Problems identified in [RFC4966] that have been solved:
 1.  Constraints on network topology (as it relates to DNS-ALG; see
     Section 3.1 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: The severity of this issue has been mitigated by the
        separation of the DNS from the NAT functionality.
        Nevertheless, a minimal coordination may be required to ensure
        that the NAT64 to be crossed (the one to which the IPv4-
        Converted IPv6 address returned to a requesting host) must be
        in the path and has also sufficient resources to handle
        received traffic.
 2.  Need for additional state and/or packet reconstruction in dealing
     with packet fragmentation.  Otherwise, implement no support for
     fragments (Section 2.5 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This issue is not specific to 64 but to all NAT-
        based solutions.  [RFC6146] specifies how to handle
        fragmentation; appropriate recommendations to avoid
        fragmentation-related DoS (Denial-of-Service) attacks are
        proposed (e.g., limit resources to be dedicated to out-of-
        order fragments).
 3.  Inappropriate translation of responses to A queries from IPv6
     nodes (Section 4.3 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: DNS64 [RFC6147] does not alter A queries.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 4.  Address selection issues and resource consumption in a DNS-ALG
     with multi-addressed nodes (Section 4.4 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: Since no DNS-ALG is required to be co-located with
        NAT64, there is no need to maintain temporary states in
        anticipation of connections.  Note that explicit bindings (see
        Section 3 of [RFC6887]) are required to allow for
        communications initiated from an IPv4-only client to an IPv6-
        only server.
 5.  Limitations on DNS security capabilities when using a DNS-ALG
     (Section 2.5 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: A DNSSEC validating stub resolver behind a DNS64 in
        server mode is not supported.  Therefore, if a host wants to
        do its own DNSSEC validation, and it wants to use a NAT64, the
        host has to also perform its own DNS64 synthesis.  Refer to
        Section 3 of [RFC6147] for more details.
 6.  Creation of a DoS threat relating to exhaustion of memory and
     address/port pool resources on the translator (Section 3.4 of
     [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: This specific DoS concern on Page 6 of [RFC4966] is
        under a DNS-ALG heading in that document, and refers to NAT-
        PT's creation of NAT mapping state when a DNS query occurred.
        With the new IPv6-IPv4 translation mechanisms, DNS queries do
        not create any mapping state in the NAT64.
        To mitigate the exhaustion of port pool issue (Section 3.4 of
        [RFC4966]), 64 must enforce a port limit similar to the one
        defined in [RFC6888].
        Thus, this concern can be fully eliminated in 64.
 7.  Requirement for applications to use keepalive mechanisms to work
     around connectivity issues caused by premature timeout for
     session table and Binding Information Base entries (Section 2.3
     of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: Since NAT64 follows some of the [RFC4787],
        [RFC5382], and [RFC5508] requirements, there is a high lower
        bound for the lifetime of sessions.  In NAT-PT, this was
        unknown and applications needed to assume the worst case.  For
        instance, in NAT64, the lifetime for a TCP session is
        approximately two hours, so not much keepalive signaling
        overhead is needed.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

        Application clients (e.g., VPN clients) are not aware of the
        timer configured in the NAT device.  For unmanaged services, a
        conservative approach would be adopted by applications that
        issue frequent keepalive messages to be sure that an active
        mapping is still maintained by any involved NAT64 device even
        if the NAT64 complies with [RFC4787], [RFC5382], and
        [RFC5508].
        Note that keepalive messages may be issued by applications to
        ensure that an active entry is maintained by a firewall, with
        or without a NAT in the path, which is located in the
        boundaries of a local domain.
 8.  Lack of address mapping persistence: Some applications require
     address retention between sessions.  The user traffic will be
     disrupted if a different mapping is used.  The use of the DNS-ALG
     to create address mappings with limited lifetimes means that
     applications must start using the address shortly after the
     mapping is created, as well as keep it alive once they start
     using it (Section 3.3 of [RFC4966]).
        Analysis: In the following, address persistence is used to
        refer to the support of "IP address pooling" behavior of
        "Paired" [RFC4787].
        In the context of 64, the external IPv4 address (representing
        the IPv6 host in the IPv4 network) is assigned by the NAT64
        machinery and not the DNS64 function.  Therefore, address
        persistence can be easily ensured by the NAT64 function (which
        complies with NAT recommendations [RFC4787] and [RFC5382]).
        Address persistence should be guaranteed for both dynamic and
        static bindings.
        In the IPv6 side of the NAT64, the same IPv6 address is used
        to represent an IPv4 host; no issue about address persistence
        is raised in an IPv6 network.

3. Conclusions

 The above analysis of the solutions provided by the stateful 64 shows
 that the majority of the problems that are not directly related to
 the decoupling of NAT and DNS remain unaddressed.  Some of these
 problems are not specific to 64 but are generic to all NAT-based
 solutions.
 This points to several shortcomings of stateful 64 that must be
 addressed if the future network deployments have to move reliably
 towards 64 as a solution to IPv6-IPv4 interconnection.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 Some of the issues, as pointed out in [RFC4966], have possible
 solutions.  However these solutions will require significant updates
 to the stateful 64, increasing its complexity.
 The following table summarizes the conclusions based on the analysis
 of stateful 64.
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |     Issue     |  NAT-PT  |  Exists |  DNS ALG | Generic |  Can be |
 |               | Specific |    in   | Specific |   NAT   | solved? |
 |               |          |  NAT64  |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |   Protocols   |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 |   embedding   |          |         |          |         |         |
 |   addresses   |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |   Protocols   |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |    No   |
 | without demux |          |         |          |         |         |
 |   capability  |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 | Binding state |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 |     decay     |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |    Loss of    |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |    No   |    No   |
 |  information  |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 | Fragmentation |    No    |    No   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |    SCTP and   |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 |  Multihoming  |          |         |          |         |         |
 |  interaction  |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |     Proxy     |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |    No   |    No   |
 | correspondent |          |         |          |         |         |
 |    node for   |          |         |          |         |         |
 |     MIPv6     |          |         |          |         |         |
 |   Multicast   |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |  IPsec tunnel |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 |      mode     |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |    Topology   |    Yes   |    No   |    Yes   |    No   |   Yes   |
 |  constraints  |          |         |          |         |         |
 |  with DNS-ALG |          |         |          |         |         |

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |   Scale and   |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 |  Single point |          |         |          |         |         |
 |   of failure  |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |    Lack of    |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 |    address    |          |         |          |         |         |
 |  persistence  |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |  DoS attacks  |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |    Address    |    Yes   |    No   |    Yes   |    No   |   Yes   |
 |   selection   |          |         |          |         |         |
 |  issues with  |          |         |          |         |         |
 |   Dual stack  |          |         |          |         |         |
 |     hosts     |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |   Non-global  |    Yes   |    No   |    Yes   |    No   |   Yes   |
 |  validity of  |          |         |          |         |         |
 | Translated RR |          |         |          |         |         |
 |    records    |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |   Incorrect   |    Yes   |    No   |    Yes   |    No   |   Yes   |
 |  translation  |          |         |          |         |         |
 |      of A     |          |         |          |         |         |
 |   responses   |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |  DNS-ALG and  |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 |     Multi-    |          |         |          |         |         |
 |   addressed   |          |         |          |         |         |
 |     nodes     |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 |     DNSSEC    |    No    |   Yes   |    No    |   Yes   |   Yes   |
 |  limitations  |          |         |          |         |         |
 +---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
                  Table 1: Summary of NAT64 analysis

4. Security Considerations

 This document does not specify any new protocol or architecture.  It
 only analyzes how BEHAVE WG 64 documents mitigate concerns raised in
 [RFC4966] and which ones are still unaddressed.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

5. Acknowledgements

 Many thanks to M. Bagnulo, D. Wing, X. Li, D. Anipko, and S.
 Moonesamy for their review and comments.
 D. Black provided the IPsec text.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

 [RFC0959]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
            STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
 [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
            A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
            Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
            June 2002.
 [RFC3948]  Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
            Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets",
            RFC 3948, January 2005.
 [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
            December 2005.
 [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
            RFC 4303, December 2005.
 [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
            (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
            RFC 4787, January 2007.
 [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
            RFC 4960, September 2007.
 [RFC4966]  Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move the Network
            Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to
            Historic Status", RFC 4966, July 2007.
 [RFC5382]  Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
            Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
            RFC 5382, October 2008.
 [RFC5508]  Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
            Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
            April 2009.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
            Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
            October 2010.
 [RFC6144]  Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
            IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.
 [RFC6145]  Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
            Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
 [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
            NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
            Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
 [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
            Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
            Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
            April 2011.
 [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
            P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
            April 2013.

6.2. Informative References

 [ADDR-SELECT]
            Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and T. Chown, "Distributing
            Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6", Work in Progress,
            April 2013.
 [DNS64]    Wing, D., "IPv6-only and Dual Stack Hosts on the Same
            Network with DNS64", Work in Progress, February 2011.
 [FTP64]    Liu, D., Beijnum, I., and Z. Cao, "FTP consideration for
            IPv4/IPv6 transition", Work in Progress, January 2012.
 [MIDDLEBOXES]
            Stucker, B., Tschofenig, H., and G. Salgueiro, "Analysis
            of Middlebox Interactions for Signaling Protocol
            Communication along the Media Path", Work in Progress,
            January 2013.
 [NAT64-HARMFUL]
            Haddad, W. and C. Perkins, "A Note on NAT64 Interaction
            with Mobile IPv6", Work in Progress, March 2011.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

 [REFERRAL] Carpenter, B., Boucadair, M., Halpern, J., Jiang, S., and
            K. Moore, "A Generic Referral Object for Internet
            Entities", Work in Progress, October 2009.
 [RFC2766]  Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address
            Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766,
            February 2000.
 [RFC3715]  Aboba, B. and W. Dixon, "IPsec-Network Address Translation
            (NAT) Compatibility Requirements", RFC 3715, March 2004.
 [RFC5245]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
            (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
            Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
            April 2010.
 [RFC5853]  Hautakorpi, J., Camarillo, G., Penfield, R., Hawrylyshen,
            A., and M. Bhatia, "Requirements from Session Initiation
            Protocol (SIP) Session Border Control (SBC) Deployments",
            RFC 5853, April 2010.
 [RFC6157]  Camarillo, G., El Malki, K., and V. Gurbani, "IPv6
            Transition in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
            RFC 6157, April 2011.
 [RFC6384]  van Beijnum, I., "An FTP Application Layer Gateway (ALG)
            for IPv6-to-IPv4 Translation", RFC 6384, October 2011.
 [RFC6888]  Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa,
            A., and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade
            NATs (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, April 2013.

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 6889 Analysis of 64 Translation April 2013

Authors' Addresses

 Reinaldo Penno
 Cisco Systems, Inc.
 170 West Tasman Drive
 San Jose, California  95134
 USA
 EMail: repenno@cisco.com
 Tarun Saxena
 Cisco Systems
 Cessna Business Park
 Bangalore  560103
 India
 EMail: tasaxena@cisco.com
 Mohamed Boucadair
 France Telecom
 Rennes  35000
 France
 EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
 Senthil Sivakumar
 Cisco Systems
 7100-8 Kit Creek Road
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27709
 USA
 EMail: ssenthil@cisco.com

Penno, et al. Informational [Page 15]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6889.txt · Last modified: 2013/04/29 22:11 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki