[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 7021

Network Working Group                                          C. Donley
Internet-Draft                                                 CableLabs
Intended status: Informational                                 L. Howard
Expires: May 3, 2012                                   Time Warner Cable
                                                            V. Kuarsingh
                                                   Rogers Communications
                                                                 J. Berg
                                                               CableLabs
                                                                J. Doshi
                                                  University of Colorado
                                                        October 31, 2011


   Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications
                     draft-donley-nat444-impacts-02

Abstract

   NAT444 is an IPv4 extension technology being considered by Service
   Providers to continue offering IPv4 service to customers while
   transitioning to IPv6.  This technology adds an extra Carrier-Grade
   NAT ("CGN") in the Service Provider network, often resulting in two
   NATs.  CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers Communications
   independently tested the impacts of NAT444 on many popular Internet
   services using a variety of test scenarios, network topologies, and
   vendor equipment.  This document identifies areas where adding a
   second layer of NAT disrupts the communication channel for common
   Internet applications.  This document was updated to also include
   Dual-Stack Lite impacts.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012.

Copyright Notice



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   Copyright (c) 2011 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Testing Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.1.  Case1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single
               Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.2.  Case2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single
               Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.3.  Case3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single
               Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.4.  Case4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service
               Providers Cross ISP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.2.  General Test Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.3.  Test Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.4.  Test Scenarios Executed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     2.5.  General Test Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.  Observed CGN Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.1.  Dropped Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.2.  Degraded Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.3.  Improvements since 2010  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.4.  Additional CGN Challenges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.  2010 Summary of Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.1.  Case1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single
           Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.2.  Case2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single
           Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.3.  Case3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single Service
           Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.4.  Case4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service
           Providers Cross ISP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

















































Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


1.  Introduction

   IANA and APNIC exhausted their IPv4 address space in 2011.  Current
   projections suggest that RIPE and ARIN may exhaust their free pools
   of IPv4 addresses in 2012.  IPv6 is the solution to the IPv4
   depletion problem; however, the transition to IPv6 will not be
   completed prior to IPv4 exhaustion.  NAT444 [I-D.shirasaki-nat444]
   and Dual-Stack Lite ([RFC6333]) are transition mechanisms that will
   allow Service Providers to multiplex customers behind a single IPv4
   address, which will allow many legacy devices and applications some
   IPv4 connectivity.  While both NAT444 and Dual-Stack Lite do provide
   basic IPv4 connectivity, they impact a number of advanced
   applications.  This document describes suboptimal behaviors of NAT444
   and DS-Lite in our test environments.

   In July-August 2010, CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers
   Communications tested the impact of NAT444 on common applications
   using Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) devices.  This testing was focused on a
   wide array of real time usage scenarios designed to evaluate the user
   experience over the public Internet using NAT444, in both single ISP
   and dual ISP environments.  The purpose of this testing was to
   identify applications where the technology either breaks or
   significantly impacts the user experience.  The outcome of the
   testing revealed that applications such as video streaming, video
   gaming and peer-to-peer file sharing are impacted by NAT444.

   From June - September 2011, CableLabs conducted additional testing of
   CGN technologies, including both NAT444 and Dual-Stack Lite.  The
   testing focused on working with several vendors including A10,
   Alcatel-Lucent, and Juniper to optimize the performance of those
   applications that experienced negative impacts during earlier CGN
   testing and to expand the testing to DS-Lite.

   Applications that were tested included but were not necessarily
   limited to the following:

   1.  Video/Audio streaming, e.g.  Silverlight-based applications,
       Netflix, YouTube, Pandora 2.

   2.  Peer-to-peer applications, e.g. video gaming, uTorrent

   3.  On line gaming, e.g.  Xbox

   4.  Large file transfers using File Transfer Protocol (FTP)

   5.  Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) calls via X-Lite, Skype





Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   6.  Social Networking, e.g.  Facebook, Webkinz

   7.  Video chat, e.g.  Skype

   8.  Web conferencing


2.  Testing Scope

2.1.  Test Cases

   The diagrams below depict the general network architecture used for
   testing NAT444 and Dual Stack-Lite co-existence technologies at
   CableLabs.

2.1.1.  Case1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single Service
        Provider

                                  ^^^^^^^^
                                 (Internet)
                                  vvvvvvvv
                                       |
                                       |
                         +---------------+
                         |      LSN      |
                         +---------------+
                                           |
                              +---------------+
                          |      CMTS     |
                              +---------------+
                                  |
                              +---------------+
                          |      CM       |
                          +---------------+
                                           |
                             +-------------------------+
                             |      Home Router        |
                             +-------------------------+
                                 |
                             +---------------+
                             |      Client   |
                             +---------------+

   This is a typical case for a client accessing content on the
   Internet.  For this case, we focused on basic web browsing, voice and
   video chat, instant messaging, video streaming (using YouTube, Google
   Videos , etc.), Torrent leeching and seeding, FTP, and gaming.




Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


2.1.2.  Case2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single Service Provider

                                  ^^^^^^^^
                             (Internet)
                              vvvvvvvv
                                           |
                                           |
                               +---------------+
                               |      LSN      |
                             +---------------+
                                           |
                             +---------------+
                               |      CMTS     |
                         +---------------+
                                           |
                               +---------------+
                           |      CM       |
                         +---------------+
                                           |
                   +-------------------------+
                   |      Home Router        |
                   +-------------------------+
                   |                |
             +---------------+   +---------------+
             |      Client   |   |      Client   |
             +---------------+   +---------------+

   This is similar to Case 1, except that two clients are behind the
   same LSN and in the same home network.  This test case was conducted
   to observe any change in speed in basic web browsing and video
   streaming.




















Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


2.1.3.  Case3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single Service Provider

                                   ^^^^^^^^
                                (Internet)
                                   vvvvvvvv
                                       |
                               |
                       +---------------+
                             |      LSN      |
                             +---------------+
                                     |
                       +---------------+
                           |      CMTS     |
                           +---------------+
                                     |
           ----------------------------------------
                     |                     |
         +---------------+         +---------------+
           |      CM       |         |      CM       |
           +---------------+         +---------------+
                   |                     |
   +-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
   |      Home Router        | |      Home Router        |
   +-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
                   |                     |
     +---------------+         +---------------+
     |      Client   |         |      Client   |
     +---------------+         +---------------+

   In this scenario, the two clients are under the same LSN but behind
   two different gateways.  This simulates connectivity between two
   residential subscribers on the same ISP.  We tested peer-to-peer
   applications.


















Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


2.1.4.  Case4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service Providers
        Cross ISP

            ^^^^^^^^                    ^^^^^^^^
           ( ISP A )                   ( ISP B  )
            Vvvvvvvv                    vvvvvvvv
             |                           |
           +---------------+         +---------------+
           |      LSN      |         |      LSN      |
           +---------------+         +---------------+
               |                         |
           +---------------+         +---------------+
           |      CMTS     |         |      CMTS     |
           +---------------+         +---------------+
              |                          |
         +---------------+         +---------------+
           |      CM       |         |      CM       |
           +---------------+         +---------------+
                 |                         |
   +-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
   |      Home Router        | |      Home Router        |
   +-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
                  |                        |
     +---------------+         +---------------+
     |      Client   |         |      Client   |
     +---------------+         +---------------+

   This test case is similar to Case 1 but with the addition of another
   identical ISP.  This topology allows us to test traffic between two
   residential customers connected across the Internet.  We focused on
   client-to-client applications such as IM and peer-to-peer.

2.2.  General Test Environment

   The lab environment was intended to emulate multiple service provider
   networks with a CGN deployed, and with connectivity to the public
   IPv4 or IPv6 internet (as dictated by the co-existence technology
   under test).  This was accomplished by configuring a CGN behind
   multiple CMTSes and setting up multiple home networks for each ISP.
   Testing involved sending traffic to and from the public internet in
   both single and dual ISP environments, using both single and multiple
   home networks.  The following equipment was used for testing:

   o  CGN

   o  CMTS





Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   o  IP sniffer

   o  RF sniffer

   o  Metrics tools (for network performance)

   o  CPE gateway devices

   o  Laptop or desktop computers (multiple OS used)

   o  Gaming consoles

   o  iPad or tablet devices

   o  other CE equipment, e.g.  BluRay players supporting miscellaneous
      applications

   One or more CPE gateway devices were configured in the home network.
   One or more host devices behind the gateways were also configured in
   order to test conditions such as multiple users on multiple home
   networks in the CGN architecture, both in single and dual ISP
   environments.

   The scope of testing was honed down to the specific types of
   applications and network conditions that demonstrated a high
   probability of diminishing user experience based on prior testing.
   The following use cases were tested:

   1.   Video streaming over Netflix

   2.   Video streaming over YouTube

   3.   Video streaming over Joost

   4.   On line gaming with Xbox (one user)

   5.   Peer to Peer gaming with Xbox (two users)

   6.   Bit Torrent/uTorrent file seeding/leeching

   7.   Pandora internet radio

   8.   FTP server

   9.   Web conferencing (GTM, WebEx)

   10.  Social Networking - Facebook, Webkinz (chat, YouTube, file
        transfer)



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   11.  Internet Archive - Video and Audio streaming; large file
        downloads

   12.  Video streaming using iClips

   13.  SIP Calls - X-Lite, Skype, PJSIP

   14.  MS Smooth Streaming (Silverlight)

   15.  Video chat - Skype, OoVoo

   The following CPE devices were used for testing these applications on
   one or more home networks:

   1.  Windows 7, XP and Vista based laptops

   2.  MAC OS X laptop

   3.  iPad

   4.  Xbox gaming consoles

   5.  iPhone and Android smartphones

   6.  LG Blu-Ray player (test applications such as Netflix, Vudu, etc.)

   7.  Home routers - Netgear, Linksys, D-Link, Cisco, Apple

2.3.  Test Metrics

   Metrics data that were collected during the course of testing were
   related to throughput, latency, and jitter.  These metrics were
   evaluated under three conditions:

   1.  Initial finding on the CGN configuration used for testing

   2.  Retest of the same test scenario with the CGN removed from the
       network

   3.  Retest with a new configuration (optimized) on the CGN (when
       possible)

   In our testing, we found no significant differences with respect to
   latency or jitter when the CGN was in the network versus when it was
   not present in the network.  It should be noted that we did not
   conduct any performance testing and metrics gathered were limited to
   single session scenarios.  Also, bandwidth was not restricted on the
   DOCSIS network.  Simulated homes shared a single DOCSIS upstream and



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   downstream channel.

2.4.  Test Scenarios Executed

   The following test scenarios were executed using the aforementioned
   applications and test equipment:

   1.  Single ISP, Single Home Network with Single User

   2.  Single ISP, Two Home Networks With One User on Each Network

   3.  Dual ISPs, Single Home Network with Single User on each ISP

   4.  Dual ISPs, One Home Network With One User ISP-A; Two Home
       Networks with one user on each for ISP-B

   These test scenarios were executed for both NAT444 and DS-Lite
   technologies.

2.5.  General Test Methodologies

   The CGN was configured for optimal setting for the specific test
   being executed for NAT444 or DS-Lite.  Individual vendor provided
   validation of the configuration used for the co-existence technology
   under test prior to the start of testing.  Some NAT444 testing used
   private [RFC1918] IPv4 space between the CGN and CPE router; other
   tests used public (non-[RFC1918]) IPv4 space between the CGN and CPE
   router.  With the exception of 6to4 ([RFC3056]) traffic, we observed
   no difference in test results whether private or public address space
   was used. 6to4 failed when public space was used between the CGN and
   CPE router was public, but CPE routers did not initiate 6to4 when
   private space was used.

   CPE gateways and client devices were configured with IPv4 or IPv6
   addresses using DHCP or manual configuration as required by each of
   the devices used in the test.

   All devices were brought to operational state.  Connectivity of CPE
   devices to provider network and public Internet were verified prior
   to start of each test.

   IP sniffers and metrics tools were configured as required before
   starting tests.  IP capture and metrics data was collected for all
   failed test scenarios.  Sniffing was configured behind the home
   routers, north and south of the CMTS, and north and south of the CGN.

   The test technician executed test scenarios listed above, for single
   and dual ISP environments, testing multiple users on multiple home



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   networks, using the applications described above, where applicable to
   the each specific test scenario.  Results checklists were compiled
   for all tests executed and for each combination of devices tested.


3.  Observed CGN Impacts

   CGN testing revealed that basic services such as e-mail and web
   browsing worked normally and as expected.  However, there were some
   service affecting issues noted for applications that fall into two
   categories; dropped service and degraded service.  In addition, for
   some specific applications in which the performance was degraded,
   throughput, latency and jitter measurements were taken.  We observed
   that performance often differs from vendor to vendor and from test
   environment to test environment, and the results are somewhat
   difficult to predict.  So as to not become a comparison between
   different vendor implementations, these results are presented in
   summary form.  When issues were identified, we worked with the
   vendors involved to confirm the specific issues and explore
   workarounds.  Except where noted, impacts to NAT444 and DS-Lite were
   similar.

   In 2010 testing, we identified that IPv6 transition technologies such
   as 6to4 [RFC3056] and Teredo [RFC4380]) fail outright or are subject
   to severe service degradation.  We did not repeat transition
   technology testing in 2011.

3.1.  Dropped Services

   Several peer-to-peer applications failed in both the NAT444 and Dual-
   Stack Lite environments.  Specifically, peer-to-peer gaming using
   Xbox, and peer-to-peer SIP calls using the PJSIP client did not
   succeed.  Many CGN devices use "full cone" NAT so that once the CGN
   maps a port for outbound services, it will accept incoming
   connections to that port.  However, some applications did not first
   send outgoing traffic and hence did not open an incoming port through
   the CGN.  Other applications try to open a particular fixed port
   through the CGN; while service will work for a single subscriber
   behind the CGN, it fails when multiple subscribers try to use that
   port.

   PJSIP and other SIP software worked when clients used a registration
   server to initiate calls, provided that the client inside the CGN
   initiated the traffic first and that only one SIP user was active
   behind a single IPv4 address at any given time.  However, in our
   testing, we observed that when making a direct client-to-client SIP
   call across two home networks on a single ISP, or when calling from a
   single home network across dual ISPs, calls could neither be



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   initiated nor received.

   In the case of peer-to-peer gaming between two Xbox 360 users in
   different home networks on the same ISP, the game could not be
   connected between the two users.  Both users shared an outside IP
   address, and tried to connect to the same port, causing a connection
   failure.  There are some interesting nuances to this problem.  In the
   case where two users are in the same home network and the scenario is
   through a single ISP, when the Xbox tries to register with the Xbox
   server, the server sees that both Xboxes are coming through the same
   public IP address and directs the devices to connect using their
   internal IP addresses.  So, the connection ultimately gets
   established directly between both Xboxes via the home gateway, rather
   than the Xbox server.  In the case where there are two Xbox users on
   two different home networks using a single ISP, and the CGN is
   configured with only one public IPv4 address, this scenario will not
   work because the route between the two users cannot be determined.
   However, if the CGN is configured with two public NAT IP addresses
   this scenario will work because now there is a unique IP address to
   communicate with.  This is not an ideal solution, however, because it
   means that there is a one-to-one relationship between IP addresses in
   the public NAT and the number of Xbox users on each network.

   Other peer-to-peer applications that were noted to fail were seeding
   sessions initiated on Bittorent and uTorrent.  In our test, torrent
   seeding was initiated on a client inside the CGN.  Leeching was
   initiated using a client on the public Internet.  It was observed
   that direct peer-to-peer seeding did not work.  However, the torrent
   session typically redirected the leeching client to a proxy server,
   in which case the torrent session was set up successfully.
   Additionally, with the proxy in the network, re-seeding via
   additional leech clients worked as would be expected for a typical
   torrent session.  Finally, uTorrent tries to use STUN to identify its
   outside address.  In working with vendors, we learned that increasing
   the STUN timeout to 4 minutes improved uTorrent seeding performance
   behind a CGN, resulting in the ability for the uTorrent client to
   open a port and successfully seed content.

3.2.  Degraded Services

   There were several applications that diminished the user experience
   when the CGN was deployed in the network.  We measured these
   degradations against a baseline IPv4 environment where NAT is not
   deployed.  Specifically, large size file transfers and video
   streaming were impacted by the presence of a CGN in the network.

   In our testing, we tried large file transfers from several FTP sites,
   as well as downloading sizeable audio and video files (750MB - 1.4



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   GB) from the Internet Archive.  What we observed was when Dual-Stack
   Lite was implemented for some specific home router and client
   combinations; the transfer rate was markedly slower.  For example,
   PC1 using one operating system behind the same home router as PC2
   using a different operating system yielded a transfer rate of 120Kbps
   for PC1, versus 250Kbps for PC2.  Our conclusion is that varying
   combinations of home routers and CE client devices may result in a
   user experience that is less than what the user would expect for
   typical applications.  It is also difficult to predict which
   combinations of CPE routers and CE devices will produce a reduced
   experience for the user.  We did not analyze the root cause of the
   divergence in performance across CE devices, as this was beyond the
   scope of our testing.  However, as this issue was specific to Dual-
   Stack Lite, we suspect that it is related to the MTU.

   While video streaming sessions for a single user generally performed
   well, testing revealed that video streaming sessions such as
   Microsoft Smooth Streaming technology (i.e.  Silverlight) or Netflix
   might also exhibit some service impacting behavior.  In particular,
   this was observed on one older, yet popular and well-known CPE router
   where the first session was severely degraded when a second session
   was initiated in the same home network.  Traffic from the first
   session ceased for 8 s once the second session was initiated.  While
   we are tempted to write this off as a problematic home router, its
   popularity suggests that home router interactions may cause issues in
   NAT444 deployments (newer routers that support DS-Lite were not
   observed to experience this condition).  Overall, longer buffering
   times for video sessions were noted for most client devices behind
   all types of home routers.  However, once the initial buffering was
   complete, the video streams were consistently smooth.  In addition,
   there were varying degrees as to how well multiple video sessions
   were displayed on various client devices across the CPE routers
   tested.  Some video playback devices performed better than others.

3.3.  Improvements since 2010

   Since CableLabs completed initial CGN testing in 2010, there have
   been quantifiable improvements in performance over CGN since that
   time.  These improvements may be categorized as follows:

   o  Content provider updates

   o  Application updates

   o  Improvements on the CGNs themselves

   In terms of content provider updates, we have noted improvements in
   the overall performance of streaming applications in the CGN



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   environment.  Whereas applications such as streaming video were very
   problematic a year ago with regard to jitter and latency, our most
   recent testing revealed that there is less of an issue with these
   conditions, except in some cases when multiple video streaming
   sessions were initiated on the same client using specific types of
   home routers.  Applications such as MS Smooth Streaming appear to
   have addressed these issues to some degree.

   As far as application updates, use of STUN and/or proxy servers to
   offset some of the limitations of NAT and tunneling in the network
   are more evident as workarounds to the peer-to-peer issues.
   Applications appear to have incorporated other mechanisms for
   delivering content faster, even if buffering times are somewhat
   slower and the content is not rendered as quickly.

   CGN vendors have also upgraded their devices to mitigate several
   known issues with specific applications.  With regard to addressing
   peer-to-peer SIP call applications, port reservations appear to be a
   workaround to the problem.  However, this approach has limitations
   because of there are limited numbers of users that can have port
   reservations at any given time.  For example, one CGN implementation
   allowed a port reservation to be made on port 5060 (default SIP port)
   but this was the only port that could be configured for the SIP
   client.  This means that only one user can be granted the port
   reservation.

3.4.  Additional CGN Challenges

   There are other challenges that arise when using shared IPv4 address
   space, as with NAT444.  Some of these challenges include:

   o  Loss of geolocation information - Often, translation zones will
      cross traditional geographic boundaries.  Since the source
      addresses of packets traversing an LSN are set to the external
      address of the LSN, it is difficult for external entities to
      associate IP/Port information to specific locations/areas.

   o  Lawful Intercept/Abuse Response - Due to the nature of NAT444
      address sharing, it will be hard to determine the customer/
      endpoint responsible for initiating a specific IPv4 flow based on
      source IP address alone.  Content providers, service providers,
      and law enforcement agencies will need to use new mechanisms
      (e.g., logging source port and timestamp in addition to source IP
      address) to potentially mitigate this new problem.  This may
      impact the timely response to various identification requests.
      See [RFC6269]





Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   o  Antispoofing - Multiplexing users behind a single IP address can
      lead to situations where traffic from that address triggers
      antispoofing/DDoS protection mechanisms, resulting in
      unintentional loss of connectivity for some users.


4.  2010 Summary of Results

   The tables below summarize results from 2010 NAT444 testing at
   CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers Communications.  They are
   included for comparison with 2011 results, documented above.

4.1.  Case1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single Service Provider

   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Test Case    | Results       | Notes                              |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Web browsing | pass          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Email        | pass          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | FTP download | pass          | performance degraded on very large |
   |              |               | downloads                          |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Bittorrent   | pass          |                                    |
   | leeching     |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Bittorrent   | fail          |                                    |
   | seeding      |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Video        | pass          |                                    |
   | streaming    |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Voice chat   | pass          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Netflix      | pass          |                                    |
   | streaming    |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Instant      | pass          |                                    |
   | Messaging    |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Ping         | pass          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Traceroute   | pass          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Remote       | pass          |                                    |
   | desktop      |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | VPN          | pass          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Xbox live    | pass          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Xbox online  | pass          | Blocked by some LSNs.              |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Xbox network | fail          | Your NAT type is moderate.  For    |
   | test         |               | best online experience you need an |
   |              |               | open NAT configuration.  You       |
   |              |               | should enable UPnP on the router.  |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Nintendo Wii | pass behind   |                                    |
   |              | one LSN, fail |                                    |
   |              | behind        |                                    |
   |              | another       |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Playstation  | pass          |                                    |
   | 3            |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Team         | fail          | pass behind one LSN, but           |
   | Fortress 2   |               | performance degraded               |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Starcraft II | pass          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | World of     | pass          |                                    |
   | Warcraft     |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Call of Duty | pass          | performance degraded behind one    |
   |              |               | LSN                                |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Slingcatcher | fail          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Netflix      | fail          | pass behind one LSN                |
   | Party (Xbox) |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Hulu         | pass          | performance degraded behind one    |
   |              |               | LSN                                |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | AIM File     | pass          | performance degraded               |
   | Tranfer      |               |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Webcam       | fail          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | 6to4         | fail          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+
   | Teredo       | fail          |                                    |
   +--------------+---------------+------------------------------------+



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


                                   Case1

4.2.  Case2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single Service Provider

   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | Test Case       | Results | Notes                                 |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | Bittorrent      | pass    |                                       |
   | leeching        |         |                                       |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | Bittorrent      | fail    |                                       |
   | seeding         |         |                                       |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | Video streaming | fail    |                                       |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | Voice chat      | pass    |                                       |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | Netflix         | pass    | performance severely impacted,        |
   | streaming       |         | eventually failed                     |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | IM              | pass    |                                       |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | Limewire        | pass    |                                       |
   | leeching        |         |                                       |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
   | Limewire        | fail    |                                       |
   | seeding         |         |                                       |
   +-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+

                                   Case2

4.3.  Case3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single Service Provider

                  +-------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Test Case         | Results | Notes |
                  +-------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Limewire leeching | pass    |       |
                  +-------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Limewire seeding  | fail    |       |
                  +-------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Utorrent leeching | pass    |       |
                  +-------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Utorrent seeding  | fail    |       |
                  +-------------------+---------+-------+

                                   Case3





Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


4.4.  Case4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service Providers Cross
      ISP

                  +------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Test Case        | Results | Notes |
                  +------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Skype voice call | pass    |       |
                  +------------------+---------+-------+
                  | IM               | pass    |       |
                  +------------------+---------+-------+
                  | FTP              | fail    |       |
                  +------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Facebook chat    | pass    |       |
                  +------------------+---------+-------+
                  | Skype video      | pass    |       |
                  +------------------+---------+-------+

                                   Case4


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA considerations.


6.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations are described in [I-D.shirasaki-nat444].


7.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]
              Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing",
              draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 (work in
              progress), October 2010.

   [I-D.shirasaki-nat444]
              Yamagata, I., Shirasaki, Y., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
              and H. Ashida, "NAT444", draft-shirasaki-nat444-02 (work
              in progress), July 2010.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains



Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              February 2006.

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
              June 2011.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
   guidance and feedback:

      Paul Eldridge

      Abishek Chandrasekaran

      Vivek Ganti

      Joey Padden

      Lane Johnson


Authors' Addresses

   Chris Donley
   CableLabs
   858 Coal Creek Circle
   Louisville, CO  80027
   USA

   Email: c.donley@cablelabs.com











Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft               NAT444 impacts                 October 2011


   Lee Howard
   Time Warner Cable
   13241 Woodland Park Rd
   Herndon, VA  20171
   USA

   Email: william.howard@twcable.com


   Victor Kuarsingh
   Rogers Communications
   8200 Dixie Road
   Brampton, ON  L6T 0C1
   Canada

   Email: victor.kuarsingh@rci.rogers.com


   John
   CableLabs
   858 Coal Creek Circle
   Louisville, CO  80027
   USA

   Email: j.berg@cablelabs.com


   Jinesh
   University of Colorado

   Email: jinesh.doshi@colorado.edu




















Donley, et al.             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/