GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7599

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) X. Li Request for Comments: 7599 C. Bao Category: Standards Track Tsinghua University ISSN: 2070-1721 W. Dec, Ed.

                                                              O. Troan
                                                         Cisco Systems
                                                         S. Matsushima
                                                      SoftBank Telecom
                                                           T. Murakami
                                                           IP Infusion
                                                             July 2015
       Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)

Abstract

 This document specifies the solution architecture based on "Mapping
 of Address and Port" stateless IPv6-IPv4 Network Address Translation
 (NAT64) for providing shared or non-shared IPv4 address connectivity
 to and across an IPv6 network.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 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).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in 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/rfc7599.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2015 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.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................4
 2. Conventions .....................................................4
 3. Terminology .....................................................5
 4. Architecture ....................................................6
 5. Mapping Rules ...................................................8
    5.1. Destinations outside the MAP Domain ........................8
 6. The IPv6 Interface Identifier ...................................9
 7. MAP-T Configuration ............................................10
    7.1. MAP CE ....................................................10
    7.2. MAP BR ....................................................11
 8. MAP-T Packet Forwarding ........................................11
    8.1. IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE ....................................11
    8.2. IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE ....................................12
    8.3. IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR ....................................12
    8.4. IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR ....................................13
 9. ICMP Handling ..................................................13
 10. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery ..........................14
    10.1. Fragmentation in the MAP Domain ..........................14
    10.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP Domain Borders .......14
    10.3. Sending IPv4 Fragments to the Outside ....................14
 11. NAT44 Considerations ..........................................15
 12. Usage Considerations ..........................................15
    12.1. EA-Bit Length 0 ..........................................15
    12.2. Mesh and Hub-and-Spoke Modes .............................15
    12.3. Communication with IPv6 Servers in the MAP-T Domain ......15
    12.4. Compatibility with Other NAT64 Solutions .................16
 13. Security Considerations .......................................16
 14. References ....................................................17
    14.1. Normative References .....................................17
    14.2. Informative References ...................................18
 Appendix A. Examples of MAP-T Translation .........................21
 Appendix B. Port-Mapping Algorithm ................................24
 Acknowledgements ..................................................25
 Contributors ......................................................25
 Authors' Addresses ................................................26

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

1. Introduction

 Experiences from initial service provider IPv6 network deployments,
 such as [RFC6219], indicate that successful transition to IPv6 can
 happen while supporting legacy IPv4 users without a full end-to-end
 dual-IP-stack deployment.  However, due to public IPv4 address
 exhaustion, this requires an IPv6 technology that supports IPv4 users
 utilizing shared IPv4 addressing, while also allowing the network
 operator to optimize their operations around IPv6 network practices.
 The use of double NAT64 translation-based solutions is an optimal way
 to address these requirements, especially in combination with
 stateless translation techniques that minimize operational challenges
 outlined in [Solutions-4v6].
 The Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)
 architecture specified in this document is such a double stateless
 NAT64-based solution.  It builds on existing stateless NAT64
 techniques specified in [RFC6145], along with the stateless
 algorithmic address and transport-layer port-mapping scheme defined
 in the Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)
 specification [RFC7597].  The MAP-T solution differs from MAP-E in
 that MAP-T uses IPv4-IPv6 translation, rather than encapsulation, as
 the form of IPv6 domain transport.  The translation mode is
 considered advantageous in scenarios where the encapsulation
 overhead, or IPv6 operational practices (e.g., the use of IPv6-only
 servers, or reliance on IPv6 + protocol headers for traffic
 classification) rule out encapsulation.  These scenarios are
 presented in [MAP-T-Use-Cases].

2. Conventions

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

3. Terminology

 MAP-T:                  Mapping of Address and Port using
                         Translation.
 MAP Customer Edge (CE): A device functioning as a Customer Edge
                         router in a MAP deployment.  A typical MAP CE
                         adopting MAP Rules will serve a residential
                         site with one WAN-side IPv6-addressed
                         interface and one or more LAN-side interfaces
                         addressed using private IPv4 addressing.
 MAP Border Relay (BR):  A MAP-enabled router managed by the service
                         provider at the edge of a MAP domain.  A BR
                         has at least an IPv6-enabled interface and an
                         IPv4 interface connected to the native IPv4
                         network.  A MAP BR may also be referred to as
                         simply a "BR" within the context of MAP.
 MAP domain:             One or more MAP CEs and BRs connected by
                         means of an IPv6 network and sharing a common
                         set of MAP Rules.  A service provider may
                         deploy a single MAP domain or may utilize
                         multiple MAP domains.
 MAP Rule:               A set of parameters describing the mapping
                         between an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address, or
                         shared IPv4 address and an IPv6 prefix or
                         address.  Each MAP domain uses a different
                         mapping rule set.
 MAP rule set:           A rule set is composed of all the MAP Rules
                         communicated to a device that are intended to
                         determine the device's IP+port mapping and
                         forwarding operations.  The MAP rule set is
                         interchangeably referred to in this document
                         as a MAP rule table or as simply a "rule
                         table".  Two specific types of rules -- the
                         Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) and the Forwarding
                         Mapping Rule (FMR) -- are defined in
                         Section 5 of [RFC7597].  The Default Mapping
                         Rule (DMR) is defined in this document.
 MAP rule table:         See MAP rule set.
 MAP node:               A device that implements MAP.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 Port set:               Each node has a separate part of the
                         transport-layer port space; this is denoted
                         as a port set.
 Port Set ID (PSID):     Algorithmically identifies a set of ports
                         exclusively assigned to a CE.
 Shared IPv4 address:    An IPv4 address that is shared among multiple
                         CEs.  Only ports that belong to the assigned
                         port set can be used for communication.  Also
                         known as a port-restricted IPv4 address.
 End-user IPv6 prefix:   The IPv6 prefix assigned to an End-user CE by
                         means other than MAP itself, e.g.,
                         provisioned using DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
                         (PD) [RFC3633], assigned via Stateless
                         Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862],
                         or configured manually.  It is unique for
                         each CE.
 MAP IPv6 address:       The IPv6 address used to reach the MAP
                         function of a CE from other CEs and from BRs.
 Rule IPv6 prefix:       An IPv6 prefix assigned by a service provider
                         for a MAP Rule.
 Rule IPv4 prefix:       An IPv4 prefix assigned by a service provider
                         for a MAP Rule.
 Embedded Address (EA) bits:
                         The IPv4 EA-bits in the IPv6 address identify
                         an IPv4 prefix/address (or part thereof) or a
                         shared IPv4 address (or part thereof) and a
                         Port Set Identifier.

4. Architecture

 Figure 1 depicts the overall MAP-T architecture, which sees any
 number of privately addressed IPv4 users (N and M) connected by means
 of MAP-T CEs to an IPv6 network that is equipped with one or more
 MAP-T BRs.  CEs and BRs that share MAP configuration parameters,
 referred to as "MAP Rules", form a MAP-T domain.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 Functionally, the MAP-T CE and BR utilize and extend some
 well-established technology building blocks to allow the IPv4 users
 to correspond with nodes on the public IPv4 network or on the IPv6
 network as follows:
 o  A (NAT44) Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT) [RFC2663]
    function on a MAP CE is extended with support for restricting the
    allowable TCP/UDP ports for a given IPv4 address.  The IPv4
    address and port range used are determined by the MAP provisioning
    process and identical to MAP-E [RFC7597].
 o  A stateless NAT64 function [RFC6145] is extended to allow
    stateless mapping of IPv4 and transport-layer port ranges to the
    IPv6 address space.
       User N
     Private IPv4
    |  Network
    |
 O--+---------------O
 |  | MAP-T CE      |
 | +-----+--------+ |
 | NAPT44|  MAP-T | |
 | +-----+        | +-._   ,-------.                     .------.
 |       +--------+ |   ,-'         `-.                ,-'       `-.
 O------------------O  /              \   O---------O /   Public   \
                       /   IPv6-only   \  |  MAP-T  |/     IPv4     \
                      (    Network      --+  Border +-   Network     )
                       \               /  |  Relay  |\              /
 O------------------O  \              /   O---------O \             /
 |    MAP-T CE      |   ;".         ,-'                `-.       ,-'
 | +-----+--------+ | ,"   `----+--'                      ------'
 | NAPT44|  MAP-T | |,          |
 | +-----+        | +        IPv6 node(s)
 |   |   +--------+ |  (with IPv4-embedded IPv6 address)
 O---+--------------O
     |
       User M
     Private IPv4
       Network
                     Figure 1: MAP-T Architecture
 Each MAP-T CE is assigned with a regular IPv6 prefix from the
 operator's IPv6 network.  This, in conjunction with MAP domain
 configuration settings and the use of the MAP procedures, allows the
 computation of a MAP IPv6 address and a corresponding IPv4 address.
 To allow for IPv4 address sharing, the CE may also have to be

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 configured with a TCP/UDP port range that is identified by means of a
 MAP Port Set Identifier (PSID) value.  Each CE is responsible for
 forwarding traffic between a given user's private IPv4 address space
 and the MAP domain's IPv6 address space.  The IPv4-IPv6 adaptation
 uses stateless NAT64, in conjunction with the MAP algorithm for
 address computation.
 The MAP-T BR connects one or more MAP-T domains to external IPv4
 networks using stateless NAT64 as extended by the MAP-T behavior
 described in this document.
 In contrast to MAP-E, NAT64 technology is used in the architecture
 for two purposes.  First, it is intended to diminish encapsulation
 overhead and allow IPv4 and IPv6 traffic to be treated as similarly
 as possible.  Second, it is intended to allow IPv4-only nodes to
 correspond directly with IPv6 nodes in the MAP-T domain that have
 IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses as per [RFC6052].
 The MAP-T architecture is based on the following key properties:
 1.  Algorithmic IPv4-IPv6 address mapping codified as MAP Rules, as
     described in Section 5
 2.  A MAP IPv6 address identifier, as described in Section 6
 3.  MAP-T IPv4-IPv6 forwarding behavior, as described in Section 8

5. Mapping Rules

 The MAP-T algorithmic mapping rules are identical to those in
 Section 5 of the MAP-E specification [RFC7597], with the following
 exception: the forwarding of traffic to and from IPv4 destinations
 outside a MAP-T domain is to be performed as described in this
 document, instead of Section 5.4 of the MAP-E specification.

5.1. Destinations outside the MAP Domain

 IPv4 traffic sent by MAP nodes that are all within one MAP domain is
 translated to IPv6, with the sender's MAP IPv6 address, derived via
 the Basic Mapping Rule (BMR), as the IPv6 source address and the
 recipient's MAP IPv6 address, derived via the Forwarding Mapping Rule
 (FMR), as the IPv6 destination address.
 IPv4-addressed destinations outside of the MAP domain are represented
 by means of IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses as per [RFC6052], using the
 BR's IPv6 prefix.  For a CE sending traffic to any such destination,
 the source address of the IPv6 packet will be that of the CE's MAP
 IPv6 address, and the destination IPv6 address will be the

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 destination IPv4-embedded IPv6 address.  This address mapping is said
 to be following the MAP-T Default Mapping Rule (DMR) and is defined
 in terms of the IPv6 prefix advertised by one or more BRs, which
 provide external connectivity.  A typical MAP-T CE will install an
 IPv4 default route using this rule.  A BR will use this rule when
 translating all outside IPv4 source addresses to the IPv6 MAP domain.
 The DMR IPv6 prefix length SHOULD be 64 bits long by default and in
 any case MUST NOT exceed 96 bits.  The mapping of the IPv4
 destination behind the IPv6 prefix will by default follow the /64
 rule as per [RFC6052].  Any trailing bits after the IPv4 address are
 set to 0x0.

6. The IPv6 Interface Identifier

 The interface identifier format of a MAP-T node is the same as the
 format described in Section 6 of [RFC7597].  The format diagram is
 provided here for convenience:
                 |          128-n-o-s bits          |
                 | 16 bits|    32 bits     | 16 bits|
                 +--------+----------------+--------+
                 |   0    |  IPv4 address  |  PSID  |
                 +--------+----------------+--------+
                  Figure 2: IPv6 Interface Identifier
 In the case of an IPv4 prefix, the IPv4 address field is right-padded
 with zeros up to 32 bits.  The PSID is left-padded with zeros to
 create a 16-bit field.  For an IPv4 prefix or a complete IPv4
 address, the PSID field is zero.
 If the End-user IPv6 prefix length is larger than 64, the most
 significant parts of the interface identifier are overwritten by the
 prefix.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

7. MAP-T Configuration

 For a given MAP domain, the BR and CE MUST be configured with the
 following MAP parameters.  The values for these parameters are
 identical for all CEs and BRs within a given MAP-T domain.
 o  The Basic Mapping Rule and, optionally, the Forwarding Mapping
    Rules, including the Rule IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv4 prefix, and
    Length of embedded address bits
 o  Use of hub-and-spoke mode or Mesh mode (if all traffic should be
    sent to the BR, or if direct CE-to-CE correspondence should be
    supported)
 o  Use of IPv4-IPv6 translation (MAP-T)
 o  The BR's IPv6 prefix used in the DMR

7.1. MAP CE

 For a given MAP domain, the MAP configuration parameters are the same
 across all CEs within that domain.  These values may be conveyed and
 configured on the CEs using a variety of methods, including DHCPv6,
 the Broadband Forum's "TR-69" Residential Gateway management
 interface [TR069], the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), or
 manual configuration.  This document does not prescribe any of these
 methods but recommends that a MAP CE SHOULD implement DHCPv6 options
 as per [RFC7598].  Other configuration and management methods may use
 the data model described by this option for consistency and
 convenience of implementation on CEs that support multiple
 configuration methods.
 Besides the MAP configuration parameters, a CE requires an IPv6
 prefix to be assigned to the CE.  This End-user IPv6 prefix is
 configured as part of obtaining IPv6 Internet access and is acquired
 using standard IPv6 means applicable in the network where the CE is
 located.
 The MAP provisioning parameters, and hence the IPv4 service itself,
 are tied to the End-user IPv6 prefix; thus, the MAP service is also
 tied to this in terms of authorization, accounting, etc.
 A single MAP CE MAY be connected to more than one MAP domain, just as
 any router may have more than one IPv4-enabled service-provider-
 facing interface and more than one set of associated addresses
 assigned by DHCPv6.  Each domain within which a given CE operates

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 would require its own set of MAP configuration elements and would
 generate its own IPv4 address.  Each MAP domain requires a distinct
 End-user IPv6 prefix.

7.2. MAP BR

 The MAP BR MUST be configured with the same MAP elements as the MAP
 CEs operating within the same domain.
 For increased reliability and load balancing, the BR IPv6 prefix MAY
 be shared across a given MAP domain.  As MAP is stateless, any BR may
 be used for forwarding to/from the domain at any time.
 Since MAP uses provider address space, no specific IPv6 or IPv4
 routes need to be advertised externally outside the service
 provider's network for MAP to operate.  However, the BR prefix needs
 to be advertised in the service provider's IGP.

8. MAP-T Packet Forwarding

 The end-to-end packet flow in MAP-T involves an IPv4 or IPv6 packet
 being forwarded by a CE or BR in one of two directions for each such
 case.  This section presents a conceptual view of the operations
 involved in such forwarding.

8.1. IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE

 A MAP-T CE receiving IPv4 packets SHOULD perform NAPT44 processing
 and create any necessary NAPT44 bindings.  The source address and
 source port range of packets resulting from the NAPT44 processing
 MUST correspond to the source IPv4 address and source transport port
 range assigned to the CE by means of the MAP Basic Mapping Rule
 (BMR).
 The IPv4 packet is subject to a longest IPv4 destination address +
 port match MAP Rule selection, which then determines the parameters
 for the subsequent NAT64 operation.  By default, all traffic is
 matched to the DMR and is subject to the stateless NAT64 operation
 using the DMR parameters for NAT64 (Section 5.1).  Packets that are
 matched to (optional) Forwarding Mapping Rules (FMRs) are subject to
 the stateless NAT64 operation using the FMR parameters (Section 5)
 for the MAP algorithm.  In all cases, the CE's MAP IPv6 address
 (Section 6) is used as a source address.
 A MAP-T CE MUST support a Default Mapping Rule and SHOULD support one
 or more Forwarding Mapping Rules.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

8.2. IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE

 A MAP-T CE receiving an IPv6 packet performs its regular IPv6
 operations (filtering, pre-routing, etc.).  Only packets that are
 addressed to the CE's MAP-T IPv6 addresses, and with source addresses
 matching the IPv6 MAP Rule prefixes of a DMR or FMR, are processed by
 the MAP-T CE, with the DMR or FMR being selected based on a longest
 match.  The CE MUST check that each MAP-T received packet's
 transport-layer destination port number is in the range allowed for
 by the CE's MAP BMR configuration.  The CE MUST silently drop any
 nonconforming packet and increment an appropriate counter.  When
 receiving a packet whose source IP address longest matches an FMR
 prefix, the CE MUST perform a check of consistency of the source
 address against the allowed values as per the derived allocated
 source port range.  If the source port number of a packet is found to
 be outside the allocated range, the CE MUST drop the packet and
 SHOULD respond with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, source
 address failed ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5).
 For each MAP-T processed packet, the CE's NAT64 function MUST compute
 an IPv4 source and destination address.  The IPv4 destination address
 is computed by extracting relevant information from the IPv6
 destination and the information stored in the BMR as per Section 5.
 The IPv4 source address is formed by classifying a packet's source as
 longest matching a DMR or FMR rule prefix, and then using the
 respective rule parameters for the NAT64 operation.
 The resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE's NAPT44
 function, where the destination IPv4 address and port number MUST be
 mapped to their original value before being forwarded according to
 the CE's regular IPv4 rules.  When the NAPT44 function is not
 enabled, by virtue of MAP configuration, the traffic from the
 stateless NAT64 function is directly forwarded according to the CE's
 IPv4 rules.

8.3. IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR

 A MAP-T BR receiving an IPv6 packet MUST select a matching MAP Rule
 based on a longest address match of the packet's source address
 against the MAP Rules present on the BR.  In combination with the
 Port Set ID derived from the packet's source IPv6 address, the
 selected MAP Rule allows the BR to verify that the CE is using its
 allowed address and port range.  Thus, the BR MUST perform a
 validation of the consistency of the source against the allowed
 values from the identified port range.  If the packet's source port
 number is found to be outside the range allowed, the BR MUST drop the

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 packet and increment a counter to indicate the event.  The BR SHOULD
 also respond with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, source address
 failed ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5).
 When constructing the IPv4 packet, the BR MUST derive the source and
 destination IPv4 addresses as per Section 5 of this document and
 translate the IPv6-to-IPv4 headers as per [RFC6145].  The resulting
 IPv4 packet is then passed to regular IPv4 forwarding.

8.4. IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR

 A MAP-T BR receiving IPv4 packets uses a longest match IPv4 +
 transport-layer port lookup to identify the target MAP-T domain and
 select the FMR and DMR rules.  The MAP-T BR MUST then compute and
 apply the IPv6 destination addresses from the IPv4 destination
 address and port as per the selected FMR.  The MAP-T BR MUST also
 compute and apply the IPv6 source addresses from the IPv4 source
 address as per Section 5.1 (i.e., using the IPv4 source and the BR's
 IPv6 prefix, it forms an IPv6-embedded IPv4 address).  The generic
 IPv4-to-IPv6 header translation procedures outlined in [RFC6145]
 apply throughout.  The resulting IPv6 packets are then passed to
 regular IPv6 forwarding.
 Note that the operation of a BR, when forwarding to/from MAP-T
 domains that are defined without IPv4 address sharing, is the same as
 that of stateless NAT64 IPv4/IPv6 translation.

9. ICMP Handling

 MAP-T CEs and BRs MUST follow ICMP/ICMPv6 translation as per
 [RFC6145]; however, additional behavior is also required due to the
 presence of NAPT44.  Unlike TCP and UDP, which provide two transport-
 protocol port fields to represent both source and destination, the
 ICMP/ICMPv6 [RFC792] [RFC4443] Query message header has only one ID
 field, which needs to be used to identify a sending IPv4 host.  When
 receiving IPv4 ICMP messages, the MAP-T CE MUST rewrite the ID field
 to a port value derived from the CE's Port Set ID.
 A MAP-T BR receiving an IPv4 ICMP packet that contains an ID field
 that is bound for a shared address in the MAP-T domain SHOULD use the
 ID value as a substitute for the destination port in determining the
 IPv6 destination address.  In all other cases, the MAP-T BR MUST
 derive the destination IPv6 address by simply mapping the destination
 IPv4 address without additional port information.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

10. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery

 Due to the different sizes of the IPv4 and IPv6 headers, handling the
 maximum packet size is relevant for the operation of any system
 connecting the two address families.  There are three mechanisms to
 handle this issue: Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD), fragmentation, and
 transport-layer negotiation such as the TCP Maximum Segment Size
 (MSS) option [RFC879].  MAP can use all three mechanisms to deal with
 different cases.
 Note: The NAT64 [RFC6145] mechanism is not lossless.  When
 IPv4-originated communication traverses a double NAT64 function
 (a.k.a. NAT464), any IPv4-originated ICMP-independent Path MTU
 Discovery, as specified in [RFC4821], ceases to be entirely reliable.
 This is because the DF=1/MF=1 combination as defined in [RFC4821]
 results in DF=0/MF=1 after a double NAT64 translation.

10.1. Fragmentation in the MAP Domain

 Translating an IPv4 packet to carry it across the MAP domain will
 increase its size (typically by 20 bytes).  The MTU in the MAP domain
 should be well managed, and the IPv6 MTU on the CE WAN-side interface
 SHOULD be configured so that no fragmentation occurs within the
 boundary of the MAP domain.
 Fragmentation in MAP-T domains SHOULD be handled as described in
 Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC6145].

10.2. Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP Domain Borders

 The forwarding of an IPv4 packet received from outside of the MAP
 domain requires the IPv4 destination address and the transport-
 protocol destination port.  The transport-protocol information is
 only available in the first fragment received.  As described in
 Section 5.3.3 of [RFC6346], a MAP node receiving an IPv4 fragmented
 packet from outside SHOULD reassemble the packet before sending the
 packet onto the MAP domain.  If the first packet received contains
 the transport-protocol information, it is possible to optimize this
 behavior by using a cache and forwarding the fragments unchanged.  A
 description of such a caching algorithm is outside the scope of this
 document.

10.3. Sending IPv4 Fragments to the Outside

 Two IPv4 hosts behind two different MAP CEs with the same IPv4
 address sending fragments to an IPv4 destination host outside the
 domain may happen to use the same IPv4 fragmentation identifier,
 resulting in incorrect reassembly of the fragments at the destination

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 host.  Given that the IPv4 fragmentation identifier is a 16-bit
 field, it can be used similarly to port ranges.  Thus, a MAP CE
 SHOULD rewrite the IPv4 fragmentation identifier to a value
 equivalent to a port of its allocated port set.

11. NAT44 Considerations

 The NAT44 implemented in the MAP CE SHOULD conform to the behavior
 and best current practices documented in [RFC4787], [RFC5508], and
 [RFC5382].  In MAP address-sharing mode (determined by the MAP
 domain / rule configuration parameters), the operation of the NAT44
 MUST be restricted to the available port numbers derived via the
 Basic Mapping Rule.

12. Usage Considerations

12.1. EA-Bit Length 0

 The MAP solution supports the use and configuration of domains where
 a BMR expresses an EA-bit length of 0.  This results in independence
 between the IPv6 prefix assigned to the CE and the IPv4 address
 and/or port range used by MAP.  The k-bits of PSID information may in
 this case be derived from the BMR.
 The constraint imposed is that each such MAP domain be composed of
 just one MAP CE that has a predetermined IPv6 end-user prefix.  The
 BR would be configured with an FMR for each such Customer Premises
 Equipment (CPE), where the rule would uniquely associate the IPv4
 address + optional PSID and the IPv6 prefix of that given CE.

12.2. Mesh and Hub-and-Spoke Modes

 The hub-and-spoke mode of communication, whereby all traffic sent by
 a MAP-T CE is forwarded via a BR, and the Mesh mode, whereby a CE is
 directly able to forward traffic to another CE, are governed by the
 activation of Forwarding Mapping Rules that cover the IPv4-prefix
 destination and port-index range.  By default, a MAP CE configured
 only with a BMR, as per this specification, will use it to configure
 its IPv4 parameters and IPv6 MAP address without enabling Mesh mode.

12.3. Communication with IPv6 Servers in the MAP-T Domain

 By default, MAP-T allows communication between both IPv4-only and any
 IPv6-enabled devices, as well as with native IPv6-only servers,
 provided that the servers are configured with an IPv4-mapped IPv6
 address.  This address could be part of the IPv6 prefix used by the
 DMR in the MAP-T domain.  Such IPv6 servers (e.g., an HTTP server or
 a web content cache device) are thus able to serve IPv6 users and

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 IPv4-only users alike, utilizing IPv6.  Any such IPv6-only servers
 SHOULD have both A and AAAA records in DNS.  DNS64 [RFC6147] will be
 required only when IPv6 servers in the MAP-T domain are themselves
 expected to initiate communication to external IPv4-only hosts.

12.4. Compatibility with Other NAT64 Solutions

 The MAP-T CE's NAT64 function is by default compatible for use with
 [RFC6146] stateful NAT64 devices that are placed in the operator's
 network.  In such a case, the MAP-T CE's DMR prefix is configured to
 correspond to the NAT64 device prefix.  This in effect allows the use
 of MAP-T CEs in environments that need to perform statistical
 multiplexing of IPv4 addresses, while utilizing stateful NAT64
 devices, and can take the role of a customer-side translator (CLAT)
 as defined in [RFC6877].

13. Security Considerations

 Spoofing attacks:  With consistency checks between IPv4 and IPv6
    sources that are performed on IPv4/IPv6 packets received by MAP
    nodes, MAP does not introduce any new opportunity for spoofing
    attacks that would not already exist in IPv6.
 Denial-of-service attacks:  In MAP domains where IPv4 addresses are
    shared, the fact that IPv4 datagram reassembly may be necessary
    introduces an opportunity for DoS attacks.  This is inherent in
    address sharing and is common with other address-sharing
    approaches such as Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) and NAT64/DNS64.  The
    best protection against such attacks is to accelerate IPv6 support
    in both clients and servers.
 Routing loop attacks:  Routing loop attacks may exist in some
    "automatic tunneling" scenarios and are documented in [RFC6324].
    They cannot exist with MAP because each BR checks that the IPv6
    source address of a received IPv6 packet is a CE address based on
    the Forwarding Mapping Rule.
 Attacks facilitated by restricted port set:  From hosts that are not
    subject to ingress filtering [RFC2827], an attacker can inject
    spoofed packets during ongoing transport connections [RFC4953]
    [RFC5961] [RFC6056].  The attacks depend on guessing which ports
    are currently used by target hosts.  Using an unrestricted port
    set is preferable, i.e., using native IPv6 connections that are
    not subject to MAP port-range restrictions.  To minimize these
    types of attacks when using a restricted port set, the MAP CE's
    NAT44 filtering behavior SHOULD be "Address-Dependent Filtering"
    as described in Section 5 of [RFC4787].  Furthermore, the MAP CEs
    SHOULD use a DNS transport proxy function to handle DNS traffic

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

    and source such traffic from IPv6 interfaces not assigned to
    MAP-T.  Practicalities of these methods are discussed in
    Section 5.9 of [Stateless-4Via6].
 ICMP Flooding:  Given the necessity to process and translate ICMP and
    ICMPv6 messages by the BR and CE nodes, a foreseeable attack
    vector is that of a flood of such messages leading to a saturation
    of the node's ICMP computing resources.  This attack vector is not
    specific to MAP, and its mitigation lies in a combination of
    policing the rate of ICMP messages, policing the rate at which
    such messages can get processed by the MAP nodes, and of course
    identifying and blocking off the source(s) of such traffic.
 [RFC6269] outlines general issues with IPv4 address sharing.

14. References

14.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
            Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.
 [RFC6145]  Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
            Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
 [RFC6346]  Bush, R., Ed., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to
            the IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6346, August 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6346>.
 [RFC7597]  Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
            Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
            Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

14.2. Informative References

 [MAP-T-Use-Cases]
            Maglione, R., Ed., Dec, W., Leung, I., and E. Mallette,
            "Use cases for MAP-T", Work in Progress,
            draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-05, October 2014.
 [RFC792]   Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
            RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
 [RFC879]   Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related
            Topics", RFC 879, DOI 10.17487/RFC0879, November 1983,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc879>.
 [RFC2663]  Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
            Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
            RFC 2663, DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2663>.
 [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
            Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
            Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
            May 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
 [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
            Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
 [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
            Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
            Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
 [RFC4787]  Audet, F., Ed., and C. Jennings, "Network Address
            Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
            UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787,
            January 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787>.
 [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
            Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
            Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
 [RFC4953]  Touch, J., "Defending TCP Against Spoofing Attacks",
            RFC 4953, DOI 10.17487/RFC4953, July 2007,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4953>.
 [RFC5382]  Guha, S., Ed., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
            Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
            RFC 5382, DOI 10.17487/RFC5382, October 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5382>.
 [RFC5508]  Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
            Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5508, April 2009,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5508>.
 [RFC5961]  Ramaiah, A., Stewart, R., and M. Dalal, "Improving TCP's
            Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks", RFC 5961,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5961, August 2010,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5961>.
 [RFC6056]  Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
            Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6056, January 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6056>.
 [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
            NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
            Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
            April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
 [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,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
 [RFC6219]  Li, X., Bao, C., Chen, M., Zhang, H., and J. Wu, "The
            China Education and Research Network (CERNET) IVI
            Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6
            Coexistence and Transition", RFC 6219,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6219, May 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6219>.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and
            P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6269, June 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6269>.
 [RFC6324]  Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack Using
            IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed
            Mitigations", RFC 6324, DOI 10.17487/RFC6324, August 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6324>.
 [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
            Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
            RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
 [RFC7598]  Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Farrer, I., Perreault, S., Dec,
            W., Bao, C., Yeh, L., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6 Options for
            Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped
            Clients", RFC 7598, DOI 10.17487/RFC7598, July 2015,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7598>.
 [Solutions-4v6]
            Boucadair, M., Ed., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O.,
            Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Carrier-side
            Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions", Work in
            Progress, draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05,
            November 2012.
 [Stateless-4Via6]
            Dec, W., Asati, R., Bao, C., Deng, H., and M. Boucadair,
            "Stateless 4Via6 Address Sharing", Work in Progress,
            draft-dec-stateless-4v6-04, October 2011.
 [TR069]    Broadband Forum TR-069, "CPE WAN Management Protocol",
            Amendment 5, CWMP Version: 1.4, November 2013,
            <https://www.broadband-forum.org>.

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

Appendix A. Examples of MAP-T Translation

 Example 1 - Basic Mapping Rule:
 Given the following MAP domain information and IPv6 end-user prefix
 assigned to a MAP CE:
 End-user IPv6 prefix:  2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
 Basic Mapping Rule:    {2001:db8:0000::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                         192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
                         16 (Rule EA-bit length)}
 PSID length:           (16 - (32 - 24) = 8 (sharing ratio of 256)
 PSID offset:           6 (default)
 A MAP node (CE or BR) can, via the BMR or equivalent FMR, determine
 the IPv4 address and port set as shown below:
 EA bits offset:        40
 IPv4 suffix bits (p):  Length of IPv4 address (32) -
                        IPv4 prefix length (24) = 8
 IPv4 address:          192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
 PSID start:            40 + p = 40 + 8 = 48
 PSID length (q):       o - p = (End-user prefix len -
                        Rule IPv6 prefix len) - p
                        = (56 - 40) - 8 = 8
 PSID:                  0x34
 Available ports (63 ranges): 1232-1235, 2256-2259, ...... ,
                              63696-63699, 64720-64723
 The BMR information allows a MAP CE to determine (complete) its
 IPv6 address within the indicated End-user IPv6 prefix.
 IPv6 address of MAP CE:  2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 Example 2 - BR:
 Another example is a MAP-T BR configured with the following FMR
 when receiving a packet with the following characteristics:
 IPv4 source address:       10.2.3.4 (0x0a020304)
 TCP source port:           80
 IPv4 destination address:  192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
 TCP destination port:      1232
 Forwarding Mapping Rule:   {2001:db8::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                             192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
                             16 (Rule EA-bit length)}
 MAP-T BR Prefix (DMR):     2001:db8:ffff::/64
 The above information allows the BR to derive the mapped destination
 IPv6 address for the corresponding MAP-T CE, and also the source
 IPv6 address for the mapped IPv4 source address, as follows:
 IPv4 suffix bits (p):     32 - 24 = 8 (18 (0x12))
 PSID length:              8
 PSID:  0                  x34 (1232)
 The resulting IPv6 packet will have the following header fields:
 IPv6 source address:      2001:db8:ffff:0:000a:0203:0400::
 IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
 TCP source port:          80
 TCP destination port:     1232
 Example 3 - FMR:
 An IPv4 host behind a MAP-T CE (configured as per the previous
 examples) corresponding with IPv4 host 10.2.3.4 will have its
 packets converted into IPv6 using the DMR configured on the MAP-T
 CE as follows:
 Default Mapping Rule:         {2001:db8:ffff::/64 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                                0.0.0.0/0 (Rule IPv4 prefix)}
 IPv4 source address:          192.0.2.18
 IPv4 destination address:     10.2.3.4
 IPv4 source port:             1232
 IPv4 destination port:        80
 MAP-T CE IPv6 source address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
 IPv6 destination address:     2001:db8:ffff:0:000a:0203:0400::

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 Example 4 - Rule with no embedded address bits and no address
 sharing:
 End-user IPv6 prefix:    2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
 Basic Mapping Rule:      {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                           192.0.2.1/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
                           0 (Rule EA-bit length)}
 PSID length:             0 (sharing ratio is 1)
 PSID offset:             n/a
 A MAP node can, via the BMR or equivalent FMR, determine the
 IPv4 address and port set as shown below:
 EA bits offset:          0
 IPv4 suffix bits (p):    Length of IPv4 address -
                          IPv4 prefix length = 32 - 32 = 0
 IPv4 address:            192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
 PSID start:              0
 PSID length:             0
 PSID:                    null
 The BMR information allows a MAP CE to also determine (complete) its
 full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP interface
 identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address).
 IPv6 address of MAP CE:  2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0201:0000

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 Example 5 - Rule with no embedded address bits and address sharing
 (sharing ratio of 256):
 End-user IPv6 prefix:    2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
 Basic Mapping Rule:      {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                           192.0.2.18/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
                           0 (Rule EA-bit length)}
 PSID length:             (16 - (32 - 24)) = 8 (sharing ratio of 256;
                          provisioned with DHCPv6)
 PSID offset:             6 (default)
 PSID:                    0x20 (provisioned with DHCPv6)
 A MAP node can, via the BMR, determine the IPv4 address and port set
 as shown below:
 EA bits offset:          0
 IPv4 suffix bits (p):    Length of IPv4 address -
                          IPv4 prefix length = 32 - 32 = 0
 IPv4 address             192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
 PSID start:              0
 PSID length:             8
 PSID:                    0x34
 Available ports (63 ranges): 1232-1235, 2256-2259, ...... ,
                              63696-63699, 64720-64723
 The BMR information allows a MAP CE to also determine (complete) its
 full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP interface
 identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address and PSID).
 IPv6 address of MAP CE:  2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
 Note that the IPv4 address and PSID are not derived from the IPv6
 prefix assigned to the CE but are provisioned separately, using, for
 example, MAP options in DHCPv6.

Appendix B. Port-Mapping Algorithm

 The driving principles and the mathematical expression of the mapping
 algorithm used by MAP can be found in Appendix B of [RFC7597].

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

Acknowledgements

 This document is based on the ideas of many, particularly Remi
 Despres, who has tirelessly worked on generalized mechanisms for
 stateless address mapping.
 The authors would also like to thank Mohamed Boucadair, Guillaume
 Gottard, Dan Wing, Jan Zorz, Nejc Skoberne, Tina Tsou, Gang Chen,
 Maoke Chen, Xiaohong Deng, Jouni Korhonen, Tomek Mrugalski, Jacni
 Qin, Chunfa Sun, Qiong Sun, Leaf Yeh, Andrew Yourtchenko, Roberta
 Maglione, and Hongyu Chen for their review and comments.

Contributors

 The following individuals authored major contributions to this
 document and made the document possible:
 Chongfeng Xie
 China Telecom
 Room 708, No. 118, Xizhimennei Street
 Beijing  100035
 China
 Phone: +86-10-58552116
 Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn
 Qiong Sun
 China Telecom
 Room 708, No. 118, Xizhimennei Street
 Beijing  100035
 China
 Phone: +86-10-58552936
 Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
 Rajiv Asati
 Cisco Systems
 7025-6 Kit Creek Road
 Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
 United States
 Email: rajiva@cisco.com
 Gang Chen
 China Mobile
 29, Jinrong Avenue
 Xicheng District, Beijing  100033
 China
 Email: phdgang@gmail.com, chengang@chinamobile.com

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 Wentao Shang
 CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
 Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
 Beijing  100084
 China
 Email: wentaoshang@gmail.com
 Guoliang Han
 CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
 Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
 Beijing  100084
 China
 Email: bupthgl@gmail.com
 Yu Zhai
 CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
 Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
 Beijing  100084
 China
 Email: jacky.zhai@gmail.com

Authors' Addresses

 Xing Li
 CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
 Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
 Beijing  100084
 China
 Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
 Congxiao Bao
 CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
 Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
 Beijing  100084
 China
 Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
 Wojciech Dec (editor)
 Cisco Systems
 Haarlerbergpark Haarlerbergweg 13-19
 Amsterdam, NOORD-HOLLAND  1101 CH
 The Netherlands
 Email: wdec@cisco.com

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] RFC 7599 MAP-T July 2015

 Ole Troan
 Cisco Systems
 Philip Pedersens vei 1
 Lysaker  1366
 Norway
 Email: ot@cisco.com
 Satoru Matsushima
 SoftBank Telecom
 1-9-1 Higashi-Shinbashi, Munato-ku
 Tokyo
 Japan
 Email: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp
 Tetsuya Murakami
 IP Infusion
 1188 East Arques Avenue
 Sunnyvale, CA  94085
 United States
 Email: tetsuya@ipinfusion.com

Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7599.txt · Last modified: 2015/07/31 00:30 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki