idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 12, 2012) is 4428 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC6144' is defined on line 522, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6459' is defined on line 579, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6145 (Obsoleted by RFC 7915) == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-06 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force M. Mawatari 3 Internet-Draft Japan Internet Exchange Co.,Ltd. 4 Intended status: Informational M. Kawashima 5 Expires: September 13, 2012 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd. 6 C. Byrne 7 T-Mobile USA 8 March 12, 2012 10 464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation 11 draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-01 13 Abstract 15 This document describes an architecture (464XLAT) for providing 16 limited IPv4 connectivity across an IPv6-only network by combining 17 existing and well-known stateful protocol translation RFC 6146 in the 18 core and stateless protocol translation RFC 6145 at the edge. 464XLAT 19 is a simple and scalable technique to quickly deploy limited IPv4 20 access service to mobile and wireline IPv6-only edge networks without 21 encapsulation. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. Motivation and Uniqueness of 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4. Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 4.1. Wireline Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 4.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 5.1. Wireline Network Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 5.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 6. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 6.1. IPv6 Address Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 6.2. IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation Chart . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 6.3. Traffic Treatment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 6.4. DNS Proxy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 6.5. IPv6 Prefix Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 6.6. CLAT in a Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 6.7. CLAT to CLAT communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 7. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 78 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 83 1. Introduction 85 The IANA unallocated IPv4 address pool was exhausted on February 3, 86 2011. Each RIR's unallocated IPv4 address pool will exhaust in the 87 near future. It will be difficult for many networks to assign IPv4 88 addresses to end users, despite substantial IP connectivity growth 89 required for mobile devices, smart-grid, and cloud nodes. 91 This document describes an IPv4 over IPv6 solution as one of the 92 techniques for IPv4 service extension and encouragement of IPv6 93 deployment. 464XLAT is not a one for one replacement of full IPv4 94 functionality. The 464XLAT IPv4 service is limited to application 95 that function in a client server model and is not fit for IPv4 peer- 96 to-peer communication or inbound IPv4 connections. 98 The 464XLAT architecture described in this document uses IPv4/IPv6 99 translation standardized in [RFC6145] and [RFC6146]. It does not 100 require DNS64 [RFC6147] since a host may simply send IPv4 packets, 101 including packets to an IPv4 DNS server, which will be translated on 102 the CLAT to IPv6 and back to IPv4 on the PLAT. 464XLAT networks may 103 use DNS64 to enable single stateful translation [RFC6146] instead of 104 464XLAT double translation where possible. It is also possible to 105 provide single IPv4/IPv6 translation service, which will be needed in 106 the future case of IPv6-only servers and peers to be reached from 107 legacy IPv4-only hosts. The 464XLAT architecture encourages IPv6 108 transition by making IPv4 services reachable across IPv6-only 109 networks and providing IPv6 and IPv4 connectivity to single-stack 110 IPv4 or IPv6 servers and peers. 112 Running a single-stack IPv6-only network has several operational 113 benefits in terms of increasing scalability and decreasing 114 operational complexity. Unfortunately, there are important cases 115 where IPv6-only networks fail to meet subscriber expectations, as 116 described in [I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience]. The 464XLAT overcomes 117 the issues described in [I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience] to provide 118 subscribers the full IPv6 and limited IPv4 functionality while 119 providing the network operator the benefits of a simple yet highly 120 scalable single-stack IPv6 network. 122 2. Terminology 124 PLAT: PLAT is Provider side translator(XLAT) that complies with 125 [RFC6146]. It translates N:1 global IPv6 packets to global 126 IPv4 packets, and vice versa. 128 CLAT: CLAT is Customer side translator(XLAT) that complies with 129 [RFC6145]. It algorithmically translates 1:1 private IPv4 130 packets to global IPv6 packets, and vice versa. The CLAT 131 function is applicable to a router or an end-node such as a 132 mobile phone. CLAT should perform router function to 133 facilitate packets forwarding through the stateless 134 translation even if it is an end-node. In addition to 135 stateless translation, the CLAT as a common home router or 3G 136 router is expected to perform gateway functions such as DHCP 137 server and DNS proxy for local clients. 139 UE: The 3GPP term for user equipment. The most common type of UE 140 is a mobile phone. 142 PDP: A Packet Data Protocol (PDP) Context is the equivalent of a 143 virtual connection between the host and a gateway. 145 3. Motivation and Uniqueness of 464XLAT 147 1. Minimal IPv4 resource requirements, maximum IPv4 efficiency 149 464XLAT has low barriers to entry since only a small amount of 150 IPv4 addresses are needed to support the stateful translation 151 [RFC6146] function in the PLAT. With port-overloading, one IPv4 152 address can support millions of simultaneous translations. 154 Given that network operators are deploying IPv6-only access 155 networks because IPv4 resources are scarce, solutions that 156 require dual-stack (no IPv4 multiplexing) or stateless address 157 sharing (bounded static address multiplexing) are simply not 158 IPv4-efficient enough to solve the two-pronged challenge of 159 increasing IPv4 address scarcity and continued exponential 160 network edge growth for network operators. 162 2. No new protocols required, quick deployment 164 464XLAT can be deployed today, it uses existing RFCs ([RFC6145] 165 and [RFC6146]), and there exists implementations for both 166 wireline networks (CLAT in the home router) and wireless 3GPP 167 networks (CLAT in the UE). The ability to quickly deploy 464XLAT 168 is a critical feature given the urgency of IPv4 exhaustion and 169 brisk pace of internet growth. 171 3. Cost-effective transition to IPv6 172 When combined with DNS64 [RFC6147], the 464XLAT architecture only 173 requires double translation in the case of IPv4-referrals or 174 IPv4-only socket calls. Consequently, the network traffic in the 175 ISP backbone network is predominately IPv6 end-to-end or single 176 translation. This is especially cost-effective in wireless 3GPP 177 GSM and UMTS networks that would otherwise require two separate 178 PDP connections to support IPv4 and IPv6. 180 While translation on the CLAT is not always used, the CLAT 181 function is crucial for enabling the IPv4-only applications. All 182 IPv6-native flows pass end-to-end without any translation. This 183 is a beneficial solution for end-users, content providers, and 184 network operators that scale best with end-to-end IPv6 185 communication. 187 In summary, the 464XLAT architecture works today for service 188 providers that require large-scale strategic IPv6 deployments to 189 overcome the challenges of IPv4 address scarcity. Since 464XLAT is 190 stateful, there is no tight coupling or IPv4 address coordination 191 between the PLAT and the CLAT. Unlike other transition architectures 192 associated with tunneling or 193 [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port], 464XLAT assumes that 194 IPv4 is scarce and IPv6 must work with today's existing systems as 195 much as possible. In the case of tunneling, the tunneling solutions 196 like Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] are known to break existing network 197 based deep packet inspection solutions like 3GPP standardized Policy 198 and Charging Control (PCC). 464XLAT does not require much IPv4 199 address space to enable the stateful translation [RFC6146] function 200 in the PLAT while providing global IPv4 and IPv6 reachability to 201 IPv6-only wireline and wireless subscribers. 203 4. Network Architecture 205 464XLAT architecture is shown in the following figure. 207 4.1. Wireline Network Architecture 209 ---- 210 | v6 | 211 ---- 212 | 213 ---- | .---+---. .------. 214 | v6 |-----+ / \ / \ 215 ---- | ------ / IPv6 \ ------ / IPv4 \ 216 +---| CLAT |---+ Internet +---| PLAT |---+ Internet | 217 ------- | ------ \ / ------ \ / 218 |v4p/v6 |--+ `---------' `----+----' 219 ------- | | 220 ----- | ----- 221 | v4p |----+ | v4g | 222 ----- | ----- 224 <- v4p -> XLAT <--------- v6 --------> XLAT <- v4g -> 226 v6 : Global IPv6 227 v4p : Private IPv4 228 v4g : Global IPv4 230 Figure 1: Wireline Network Topology 232 4.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Architecture 234 ---- 235 | v6 | 236 ---- 237 | 238 .---+---. 239 / \ 240 / IPv6 \ 241 | Internet | 242 \ / 243 UE / Mobile Phone `---------' 244 +----------------------+ | 245 | ---- | | .---+---. .------. 246 | | v6 |----+ | / \ / \ 247 | ---- | ------| / IPv6 PDP \ ------ / IPv4 \ 248 | +---| CLAT |---+ Mobile Core +---| PLAT |--+ Internet | 249 | | ------| \ GGSN / ------ \ / 250 | | | \ ' `----+---' 251 | ------ | | `-------' | 252 | | v4p |---+ | ----- 253 | ------ | | | v4g | 254 +----------------------+ ----- 256 <- v4p -> XLAT <--------- v6 --------> XLAT <- v4g -> 258 v6 : Global IPv6 259 v4p : Private IPv4 260 v4g : Global IPv4 262 Figure 2: Wireless 3GPP Network Topology 264 5. Applicability 266 5.1. Wireline Network Applicability 268 When an ISP has IPv6 access network infrastructure and 464XLAT, the 269 ISP can provide IPv4 service to end users across an IPv6 access 270 network. The result is that edge network growth is no longer tightly 271 coupled to the availability of scarce IPv4 addresses. 273 If the IXP or another provider operates the PLAT, the ISP is only 274 required to deploy an IPv6 access network. All ISPs do not need IPv4 275 access networks. They can migrate their access network to a simple 276 and highly scalable IPv6-only environment. Incidentally, Japan 277 Internet Exchange(JPIX) is providing 464XLAT trial service since July 278 2010. In addition to this, the effectiveness of 464XLAT was 279 confirmed in the WIDE camp Spring 2012. The result is described in 280 [I-D.hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience]. 282 5.2. Wireless 3GPP Network Applicability 284 The vast majority of mobile wireless networks are compliant to Pre- 285 Release 9 3GPP standards. In Pre-Release 9 3GPP networks, GSM and 286 UMTS networks must signal and support both IPv4 and IPv6 PDP 287 attachments to access IPv4 and IPv6 network destinations. Since 288 there are 2 PDPs required to support 2 address families, this is 289 double the number of PDPs required to support the status quo of 1 290 address family, which is IPv4. Doubling the PDP count to support 291 IPv4 and IPv6 is generally not operationally viable since a large 292 portion of the network cost is derived from the number of PDP 293 attachments, both in terms of licenses from the network hardware 294 vendors and in terms of actual hardware resources required to support 295 and maintain the PDP signaling and mobility events. Doubling the 296 number of PDP attachments has been one of the major barriers to 297 introducing IPv6 in mobile networks. Dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 simply 298 costs more from the network provider perspective and does not result 299 in any new revenues. In 3GPP Release 9 and forward, 2 PDPs are no 300 longer required but the scarcity of IPv4 addresses remain. 302 Now that both global and private IPv4 addresses are scarce to the 303 extent that it is a substantial business risk and limiting growth in 304 many areas, the mobile network providers must support IPv6 to solve 305 the IP address scarcity issue. It is not feasible to simply turn on 306 additional IPv6 PDP network attachments since that does not solve the 307 near-term IPv4 scarcity issues and it increases cost in most cases. 308 The most logical path forward is to replace IPv4 with IPv6 and 309 replace the common NAT44 with stateful translation [RFC6146] and 310 DNS64 [RFC6147]. Extensive live network testing with hundreds of 311 friendly-users has shown that IPv6-only network attachments for 312 mobile devices supports over 85% of the common applications on the 313 Android mobile operating systems. The remaining 15% of applications 314 do not work because the application requires an IPv4 socket or the 315 application does an IPv4-referral. These findings are consistent 316 with the mobile IPv6-only user experience in 317 [I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience]. 319 464XLAT in combination with stateful translation [RFC6146] and DNS64 320 [RFC6147] allows 85% of the Android applications to continue to work 321 with single translation or native IPv6 access. For the remaining 15% 322 of applications that require IPv4 connectivity, the CLAT function on 323 the UE provides a private IPv4 address and IPv4 default-route on the 324 host for the applications to reference and bind to. Connections 325 sourced from the IPv4 interface are immediately routed to the CLAT 326 function and passed to the IPv6-only mobile network, destine to the 327 PLAT. In summary, the UE has the CLAT function that does a stateless 328 translation [RFC6145], but only when required. The mobile network 329 has a PLAT that does stateful translation [RFC6146]. 331 6. Implementation Considerations 333 6.1. IPv6 Address Format 335 IPv6 address format in 464XLAT is presented in the following format. 337 +-----------------------------------------------+---------------+ 338 | XLAT prefix(96) | IPv4(32) | 339 +-----------------------------------------------+---------------+ 341 IPv6 Address Format for 464XLAT 343 Source address and destination address have IPv4 address embedded in 344 the low-order 32 bits of the IPv6 address. The format is defined in 345 Section 2.2 of [RFC6052]. However, 464XLAT does not use the Well- 346 Known IPv6 Prefix "64:ff9b::/96". 348 6.2. IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation Chart 350 Source IPv4 address 351 +----------------------------+ 352 | Global IPv4 (32bit) | 353 | assigned to IPv4 pool@PLAT | 354 +--------+ +----------------------------+ 355 | IPv4 | Destination IPv4 address 356 | server | +----------------------------+ 357 +--------+ | Global IPv4 (32bit) | 358 ^ | assigned to IPv4 server | 359 | +----------------------------+ 360 +--------+ 361 | PLAT | Stateful XLATE(IPv4:IPv6=1:n) 362 +--------+ 363 ^ 364 | 365 Source IPv6 address (IPv6 cloud) 366 +--------------------------------------+----------------------------+ 367 | XLAT prefix for source (96bit) | Private IPv4 (32bit) | 368 | assigned to each consumer of ISP | assigned to IPv4 client | 369 +--------------------------------------+----------------------------+ 370 Destination IPv6 address 371 +--------------------------------------+----------------------------+ 372 | XLAT prefix for destination (96bit) | Global IPv4 (32bit) | 373 | assigned to PLAT | assigned to IPv4 server | 374 +--------------------------------------+----------------------------+ 375 (IPv6 cloud) 376 ^ 377 | 378 +--------+ 379 | CLAT | Stateless XLATE(IPv4:IPv6=1:1) 380 +--------+ 381 ^ Source IPv4 address 382 | +----------------------------+ 383 +--------+ | Private IPv4 (32bit) | 384 | IPv4 | | assigned to IPv4 client | 385 | client | +----------------------------+ 386 +--------+ Destination IPv4 address 387 +----------------------------+ 388 | Global IPv4 (32bit) | 389 | assigned to IPv4 server | 390 +----------------------------+ 392 IPv4/IPv6 Address Translation Chart 394 6.3. Traffic Treatment Scenarios 396 +--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+ 397 | Server | Application | Traffic Treatment | Location of | 398 | | and Host | | Translation | 399 +--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+ 400 | IPv6 | IPv6 | End-to-end IPv6 | None | 401 +--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+ 402 | IPv4 | IPv6 | Stateful Translation | PLAT | 403 +--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+ 404 | IPv4 | IPv4 | 464XLAT | PLAT/CLAT | 405 +--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+ 406 | IPv6 | IPv4 | Stateless Translation | CLAT | 407 +--------+-------------+-----------------------+-------------+ 409 Traffic Treatment Scenarios 411 The above chart shows most common traffic types and traffic 412 treatment. 414 6.4. DNS Proxy Implementation 416 The case of an IPv4-only node behind CLAT querying an IPv4 DNS server 417 is undesirable since it requires both stateful and stateless 418 translation for each DNS lookup. The CLAT should set itself as the 419 DNS server via DHCP or other means and proxy DNS queries for IPv4 and 420 IPv6 clients. Using the CLAT enabled home router or UE as a DNS 421 proxy is a normal consume gateway function and simplifies the traffic 422 flow so that only IPv6 native queries are made across the access 423 network. The CLAT should allow for a client to query any DNS server 424 of its choice and bypass the proxy. 426 6.5. IPv6 Prefix Handling 428 In the best case, the CLAT will have a dedicated /64 via DHCPv6 or 429 other means to source and receive IPv6 packets associated with the 430 [RFC6145] stateless translation of IPv4 packets to the local clients. 432 In suboptimal cases where the access network does not allow for a 433 dedicated translation prefix, CLAT may take ownership of a /96 from 434 an attached interface's /64 to source and receive translation 435 traffic. If this case, the CLAT should actively avoid LAN address 436 conflicts for this claimed /96. Alternatively, the CLAT may do NAT44 437 such that all private IPv4 sourced LAN packets appears from one 438 private IPv4 address which is statelessly translated to one IPv6 439 address that the CLAT will own as a host IPv6 address from an IPv6 440 /64 interface. 442 The CLAT may discover the Pref64::/n of the PLAT via some method such 443 as DHCPv6 option, TR-069, DNS APL RR [RFC3123] or 444 [I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic]. 446 6.6. CLAT in a Gateway 448 The CLAT is a stateless translation feature which can be implemented 449 in a common home router or mobile phone that has a mobile router 450 feature. The router with CLAT function should provide common router 451 services such as DHCP of [RFC1918] addresses, DHCPv6, and DNS 452 service. The router should set itself as the DNS server advertised 453 via DHCP or other means to the clients so that it may implement the 454 DNS proxy function to avoid double translation of DNS request. 456 6.7. CLAT to CLAT communications 458 While CLAT to CLAT IPv4 communication may work when the client IPv4 459 subnets do not overlap, this traffic flow is out of scope. 464XLAT is 460 a hub and spoke architecture focused on enabling IPv4-only services 461 over IPv6-only access networks. 463 7. Deployment Considerations 465 Even if the Internet access provider for consumers is different from 466 the PLAT provider (another Internet access provider or Internet 467 exchange provider, etc.), it can implement traffic engineering 468 independently from the PLAT provider. Detailed reasons are below: 470 1. The Internet access provider for consumers can figure out IPv4 471 source address and IPv4 destination address from translated IPv6 472 packet header, so it can implement traffic engineering based on 473 IPv4 source address and IPv4 destination address (e.g. traffic 474 monitoring for each IPv4 destination address, packet filtering 475 for each IPv4 destination address, etc.). The tunneling methods 476 do not have such a advantage, without any deep packet inspection 477 for processing the inner IPv4 packet of the tunnel packet. 479 2. If the Internet access provider for consumers can assign IPv6 480 prefix greater than /64 for each subscriber, this 464XLAT 481 architecture can separate IPv6 prefix for native IPv6 packets and 482 XLAT prefix for IPv4/IPv6 translation packets. Accordingly, it 483 can identify the type of packets ("native IPv6 packets" and 484 "IPv4/IPv6 translation packets"), and implement traffic 485 engineering based on IPv6 prefix. 487 This 464XLAT architecture has two capabilities. One is a IPv4 -> 488 IPv6 -> IPv4 translation for sharing global IPv4 addresses, another 489 is a IPv4 -> IPv6 translation for reaching IPv6-only servers from 490 IPv4-only clients that can not support IPv6. IPv4-only clients must 491 be support through the long period of global transition to IPv6. 493 8. Security Considerations 495 To implement a PLAT, see security considerations presented in Section 496 5 of [RFC6146]. 498 To implement a CLAT, see security considerations presented in Section 499 7 of [RFC6145]. The CLAT may comply with [RFC6092]. 501 9. IANA Considerations 503 This document has no actions for IANA. 505 10. Acknowledgements 507 The authors would like to thank JPIX NOC members, JPIX 464XLAT trial 508 service members, Seiichi Kawamura, Dan Drown, Brian Carpenter, Rajiv 509 Asati, Washam Fan, Behcet Sarikaya, Jan Zorz, Remi Despres, Tatsuya 510 Oishi, Lorenzo Colitti, and Erik Kline for their helpful comments. 511 We also would like to thank Fred Baker and Joel Jaeggli for their 512 support. 514 11. References 516 11.1. Normative References 518 [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. 519 Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, 520 October 2010. 522 [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for 523 IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011. 525 [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation 526 Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. 528 [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful 529 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 530 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. 532 11.2. Informative References 534 [I-D.arkko-ipv6-only-experience] 535 Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only 536 Network", draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-05 (work in 537 progress), February 2012. 539 [I-D.hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience] 540 Hazeyama, H., Hiromi, R., Ishihara, T., and O. Nakamura, 541 "Experiences from IPv6-Only Networks with Transition 542 Technologies in the WIDE Camp Spring 2012", 543 draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience-01 (work in 544 progress), March 2012. 546 [I-D.ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic] 547 Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of 548 IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", 549 draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-06 (work in 550 progress), March 2012. 552 [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port] 553 Bao, C., Troan, O., Matsushima, S., Murakami, T., and X. 554 Li, "Mapping of Address and Port (MAP)", 555 draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 (work in 556 progress), January 2012. 558 [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and 559 E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", 560 BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. 562 [RFC3123] Koch, P., "A DNS RR Type for Lists of Address Prefixes 563 (APL RR)", RFC 3123, June 2001. 565 [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in 566 Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing 567 Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, 568 January 2011. 570 [RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van 571 Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address 572 Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147, 573 April 2011. 575 [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- 576 Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 577 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011. 579 [RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T., 580 Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation 581 Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)", 582 RFC 6459, January 2012. 584 Authors' Addresses 586 Masataka Mawatari 587 Japan Internet Exchange Co.,Ltd. 588 KDDI Otemachi Building 19F, 1-8-1 Otemachi, 589 Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0004 590 JAPAN 592 Phone: +81 3 3243 9579 593 Email: mawatari@jpix.ad.jp 595 Masanobu Kawashima 596 NEC AccessTechnica, Ltd. 597 800, Shimomata 598 Kakegawa-shi, Shizuoka 436-8501 599 JAPAN 601 Phone: +81 537 23 9655 602 Email: kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com 604 Cameron Byrne 605 T-Mobile USA 606 Bellevue, Washington 98006 607 USA 609 Email: cameron.byrne@t-mobile.com