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

Versions: (draft-durand-softwire-dual-stack-lite) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 6333

Internet Engineering Task Force                                A. Durand
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                                R. Droms
Expires: February 12, 2011                                         Cisco
                                                             J. Woodyatt
                                                                   Apple
                                                                  Y. Lee
                                                                 Comcast
                                                         August 11, 2010


    Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion
                 draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06

Abstract

   This document revisits the dual-stack model and introduces the dual-
   stack lite technology aimed at better aligning the costs and benefits
   of deploying IPv6 in service provider networks.  Dual-stack lite
   enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4 addresses among
   customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP (IPv4-
   in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation (NAT).

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 February 12, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   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.  Requirements language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Deployment scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Access model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.  CPE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  Directly connected device  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  B4 element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.2.  Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.3.  Fragmentation and Reassembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.4.  AFTR discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.5.  DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.6.  Interface initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.7.  Well-known IPv4 address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  AFTR element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.3.  Fragmentation and Reassembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.4.  DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.5.  Well-known IPv4 address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.6.  Extended binding table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Network Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Tunneling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.2.  VPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     7.3.  Multicast considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  NAT considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  NAT pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  NAT conformance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.3.  Application Level Gateways (ALG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.4.  Port allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       8.4.1.  How many ports per customers?  . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       8.4.2.  Dynamic port assignment considerations . . . . . . . . 12
       8.4.3.  Subscriber controlled port assignment  . . . . . . . . 12
     8.5.  Other considerations about sharing global IPv4
           addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   12. Appendix A: Deployment considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     12.1. AFTR service distribution and horizontal scaling . . . . . 14
     12.2. Horizontal scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     12.3. High availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     12.4. Logging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   13. Appendix B: Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     13.1. Gateway based architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       13.1.1. Example message flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       13.1.2. Translation details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     13.2. Host based architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       13.2.1. Example message flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       13.2.2. Translation details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   14. Appendix C: Related DS-Lite work on port management  . . . . . 30
   15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     15.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     15.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

































Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


1.  Introduction

   The common thinking for more than 10 years has been that the
   transition to IPv6 will be based solely on the dual stack model and
   that most things would be converted this way before we ran out of
   IPv4.  However, this has not happened.  The IANA free pool of IPv4
   addresses will be depleted soon, well before sufficient IPv6
   deployment will exist.  As a result, many IPv4 services have to
   continue to be provided even under severely limited address space.

   This document specifies the dual-stack lite technology which is aimed
   at better aligning the costs and benefits in service provider
   networks.  Dual-stack lite will enable both continued support for
   IPv4 services and incentives for the deployment of IPv6.  It also de-
   couples IPv6 deployment in the service provider network from the rest
   of the Internet, making incremental deployment easier.

   Dual-stack lite enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4
   addresses among customers by combining two well-known technologies:
   IP in IP (IPv4-in-IPv6) and NAT.

   This document makes a distinction between a dual-stack capable and a
   dual-stack provisioned device.  The former is a device that has code
   that implements both IPv4 and IPv6, from the network layer to the
   applications.  The latter is a similar device that has been
   provisioned with both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address on its
   interface(s).  This document will also further refine this notion by
   distinguishing between interfaces provisioned directly by the service
   provider from those provisioned by the customer.

   Pure IPv6-only devices (i.e. devices that do not include an IPv4
   stack) are outside of the scope of this document.

   This document will first present some deployment scenario and then
   define the behavior of the two elements of the dual-stack lite
   technology:the B4 and the AFTR.  It will then go into networking and
   NATing considerations.


2.  Requirements language

   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].







Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


3.  Terminology

   The technology described in this document is known as dual-stack
   lite.  The abbreviation DS-Lite will be used along this text.

   This document also introduces two new terms: the DS-Lite Basic
   Bridging BroadBand element (B4) and the DS-Lite Address Family
   Transition Router element (AFTR).

   Dual-stack is defined in [RFC4213].

   NAT related terminology is defined in [RFC4787].

   CPE stands for Customer Premise Equipment.  This is the layer 3
   device in the customer premise that is connected to the service
   provider network.  That device is often a home gateway.  However,
   sometimes computers are directly attached to the service provider
   network.  In such cases, such computers can be viewed as CPEs as
   well.


4.  Deployment scenarios

4.1.  Access model

   Instead of relying on a cascade of NATs, the dual-stack lite model is
   built on IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels to cross the network to reach a
   carrier-grade IPv4-IPv4 NAT (the AFTR) where customers will share
   IPv4 addresses.  There are numbers of benefits to this approach:

   o  This technology decouples the deployment of IPv6 in the service
      provider network (up to the customer premise equipment or CPE)
      from the deployment of IPv6 in the global Internet and in customer
      applications & devices.

   o  The management of the service provider access networks is
      simplified by leveraging the large IPv6 address space.
      Overlapping private IPv4 address spaces are not required to
      support very large customer bases.

   o  As tunnels can terminate anywhere in the service provider network,
      this architecture leads itself to horizontal scaling and provides
      great flexibility to adapt to changing traffic load.

   o  Tunnels provide a direct connection between B4 and the AFTR.  This
      can be leveraged to enable customers and their applications to
      control how the NAT function of the AFTR is performed.




Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   A key characteristic of this approach is that communications between
   end-nodes stay within their address family.  IPv6 sources only
   communicate with IPv6 destinations, IPv4 sources only communicate
   with IPv4 destinations.  There is no protocol family translation
   involved in this approach.  This simplifies greatly the task of
   applications that may carry literal IP addresses in their payload.

4.2.  CPE

   This section describes home Local Area networks characterized by the
   presence of a home gateway, or CPE, provisioned only with IPv6 by the
   service provider.

   A DS-Lite CPE is an IPv6 aware CPE with a B4 Interface implemented in
   the WAN interface.

   A DS-Lite CPE SHOULD NOT operate a NAT function between an internal
   interface and a B4 interface, as the NAT function will be performed
   by the AFTR in the service provider's network.  That will avoid
   accidentally operating in a double NAT environment.

   However, it SHOULD operate its own DHCP(v4) server handing out
   [RFC1918] address space (e.g. 192.168.0.0/16) to hosts in the home.
   It SHOULD advertise itself as the default IPv4 router to those home
   hosts.  It SHOULD also advertise itself as a DNS server in the DHCP
   Option 6 (DNS Server).  Additionally, it SHOULD operate a DNS proxy
   to accept DNS IPv4 requests from home hosts and send them using IPv6
   to the service provider DNS servers, as described in Section 5.5.

   Note: if an IPv4 home host decides to use another IPv4 DNS server,
   the DS-Lite CPE will forward those DNS requests via the B4 interface,
   the same way it forwards any regular IPv4 packets.  However, each DNS
   request will create a binding in the AFTR.  A large number of DNS
   requests may have direct impact to the AFTR's NAT table utilization.

   IPv6 capable devices directly reach the IPv6 Internet.  Packets
   simply follow IPv6 routing, they do not go through the tunnel, and
   are not subject to any translation.  It is expected that most IPv6
   capable devices will also be IPv4 capable and will simply be
   configured with an IPv4 RFC1918 style address within the home network
   and access the IPv4 Internet the same way as the legacy IPv4-only
   devices within the home.

   Pure IPv6-only devices (i.e. devices that do not include an IPv4
   stack) are outside of the scope of this document.






Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


4.3.  Directly connected device

   In broadband home networks, sometime devices are directly connected
   to the broadband service provider.  They are connected straight to a
   modem, without a home gateway.  Those devices are, in fact, acting as
   CPEs.

   Under this scenario, the customer device is a dual-stack capable host
   that is only provisioned by the service provider only with IPv6.  The
   device itself acts as a B4 element and the IPv4 service is provided
   by an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, just as in the home gateway/CPE case.
   That device can run any combinations of IPv4 and/or IPv6
   applications.

   A directly connected DS-Lite device SHOULD send its DNS requests over
   IPv6 to the IPv6 DNS server it has been configured to use.

   Similarly to the previous sections, IPv6 packets follow IPv6 routing,
   they do not go through the tunnel, and are not subject to any
   translation.

   The support of IPv4-only devices and IPv6-only devices in this
   scenario is out of scope for this document.


5.  B4 element

5.1.  Definition

   The B4 element is a function implemented on a dual-stack capable
   node, either a directly connected device or a CPE, that creates a
   tunnel to an AFTR.

5.2.  Encapsulation

   The tunnel is a multi-point to point IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel ending on a
   service provider AFTR.

   See section 7.1 for additional tunneling considerations.

   Note: at this point, DS-Lite only defines IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels,
   however other types of encapsulation could be defined in the future.

5.3.  Fragmentation and Reassembly

   Using an encapsulation (IPv4-in-IPv6 or anything else) to carry IPv4
   traffic over IPv6 will reduce the effective MTU of the datagram.
   Unfortunately, path MTU discovery [RFC1191] is not a reliable method



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   to deal with this problem.

   A solution to deal with this problem is for the service provider to
   increase the MTU size of all the links between the B4 element and the
   AFTR elements by at least 40 bytes to accommodate both the IPv6
   encapsulation header and the IPv4 datagram without fragmenting the
   IPv6 packet.

   However, as not all service providers will be able to increase their
   link MTU, the B4 element MUST perform fragmentation and reassembly if
   the outgoing link MTU cannot accommodate for the extra IPv6 header.
   Fragmentation MUST happen after the encapsulation on the IPv6 packet.
   Reassembly MUST happen before the decapsulation of the IPv6 header.
   Detailed procedure has been specified in [RFC2473] Section 7.2.

5.4.  AFTR discovery

   In order to configure the IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel, the B4 element needs
   the IPv6 address of the AFTR element.  This IPv6 address can be
   configured using a variety of methods, ranging from an out-of-band
   mechanism, manual configuration or a variety of DHCPv6 options.

   In order to guarantee interoperability, a B4 element SHOULD implement
   the DHCPv6 option defined in
   [I-D.ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option].

5.5.  DNS

   A B4 element is only configured from the service provider with IPv6.
   As such, it can only learn the address of a DNS recursive server
   through DHCPv6 (or other similar method over IPv6).  As DHCPv6 only
   defines an option to get the IPv6 address of such a DNS recursive
   server, the B4 element cannot easily discover the IPv4 address of
   such a recursive DNS server, and as such will have to perform all DNS
   resolution over IPv6.

   The B4 element can pass this IPv6 address to downstream IPv6 nodes,
   but not to downstream IPv4 nodes.  As such, the B4 element SHOULD
   implement a DNS proxy, following the recommendations of [RFC5625].

5.6.  Interface initialization

   Initialization of the interface including a B4 element is out-of-
   scope in this specification.







Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


5.7.  Well-known IPv4 address

   Any locally unique IPv4 address could be configured on the IPv4-in-
   IPv6 tunnel to represent the B4 element.  Configuring such an address
   is often necessary when the B4 element is sourcing IPv4 datagrams
   directly over the tunnel.  In order to avoid conflicts with any other
   address, IANA has defined a well-known range, 192.0.0.0/29.

   192.0.0.0 is the reserved subnet address. 192.0.0.1 is reserved for
   the AFTR element.  The B4 element MAY use any other addresses within
   the 192.0.0.0/29 range.

   Note: a range of addresses has been reserved for this purpose.  The
   intent is to accommodate nodes implementing multiple B4 elements.


6.  AFTR element

6.1.  Definition

   An AFTR element is the combination of an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel end-
   point and an IPv4-IPv4 NAT implemented on the same node.

6.2.  Encapsulation

   The tunnel is a point-to-multipoint IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel ending at the
   B4 elements.

   See section 7.1 for additional tunneling considerations.

   Note: at this point, DS-Lite only defines IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels,
   however other types of encapsulation could be defined in the future.

6.3.  Fragmentation and Reassembly

   As noted previously, fragmentation and reassembly need to be taken
   care of by the tunnel end-points.  As such, the AFTR MUST perform
   fragmentation and reassembly if the underlying link MTU cannot
   accommodate the extra IPv6 header of the tunnel.  Fragmentation MUST
   happen after the encapsulation on the IPv6 packet.  Reassembly MUST
   happen before the decapsulation of the IPv6 header.  Detailed
   procedure has been specified in [RFC2473] Section 7.2.

   Fragmentation at the Tunnel Entry-Point is a light-weight operation.
   In contrast, reassembly at the Tunnel Exit-Point can be expensive.
   When the Tunnel Exit-Point receives the first fragmented packet, it
   must wait for the second fragmented packet to arrive in order to
   reassemble the two fragmented IPv6 packets for decapsulation.  This



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   requires the Tunnel Exit-Point to buffer and keep track of fragmented
   packets.  Consider that the AFTR is the Tunnel Exit-Point for many
   tunnels.  If many clients simultaneously source large number of
   fragmented packets to the AFTR, this will require the AFTR to buffer
   and consume enormous resources to keep track of the flows.  This
   reassembly process will significantly impact the AFTR performance.
   However, this impact only happens when many clients simultaneously
   source large IPv4 packets.  Since we believe that majority of the
   clients will receive large IPv4 packets (such as watching video
   streams) instead of sourcing large IPv4 packets (such as sourcing
   video streams), so reassembly is only a fraction of the overall
   AFTR's workload.

   Methods to avoid fragmentation, such as rewriting the TCP MSS option
   or using technologies such as Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation
   Layer defined in [I-D.templin-seal] are out of scope for this
   document.

6.4.  DNS

   As noted previously, DS-Lite node implementing a B4 elements will
   perform DNS resolution over IPv6.  As such, very few, if any, DNS
   packets will flow through the AFTR element.

6.5.  Well-known IPv4 address

   The AFTR MAY use the well-known IPv4 address 192.0.0.1 reserved by
   IANA to configure the IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel.  That address can then be
   used to report ICMP problems and will appear in traceroute outputs.

6.6.  Extended binding table

   The NAT binding table of the AFTR element is extended to include the
   source IPv6 address of the incoming packets.  This IPv6 address is
   used to disambiguate between the overlapping IPv4 address space of
   the service provider customers.

   By doing a reverse look-up in the extended IPv4 NAT binding table,
   the AFTR knows how to reconstruct the IPv6 encapsulation when the
   packets comes back from the Internet.  That way, there is no need to
   keep a static configuration for each tunnel.


7.  Network Considerations







Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


7.1.  Tunneling

   Tunneling MUST be done in accordance to [RFC2473] and [RFC4213].
   Traffic classes ([RFC2474]) from the IPv4 headers SHOULD be carried
   over to the IPv6 headers and vice versa.

7.2.  VPN

   Dual-stack lite implementations SHOULD NOT interfere with the
   functioning of IPv4 or IPv6 VPNs.

7.3.  Multicast considerations

   Multicast is out-of-scope in this document.


8.  NAT considerations

8.1.  NAT pool

   AFTRs MAY operate distinct, non overlapping NAT pools.  Those NAT
   pools do not have to be continuous.

8.2.  NAT conformance

   A dual-stack lite AFTR SHOULD implement behavior conforming to the
   best current practice, currently documented in [RFC4787], [RFC5382]
   and [RFC5508].  Other requirements for AFTRs can be found in
   [I-D.nishitani-cgn].

8.3.  Application Level Gateways (ALG)

   The AFTR should only perform a minimum number of ALG for the classic
   applications such as FTP, RTSP/RTP, IPsec and PPTP VPN pass-through
   and enable the users to use their own ALG on statically or
   dynamically reserved ports instead.

8.4.  Port allocation

8.4.1.  How many ports per customers?

   Because IPv4 addresses will be shared among customers and potentially
   a large address space reduction factor may be applied, in average,
   only a limited number N of TCP or UDP port numbers will be available
   per customer.  This means that applications opening a very large
   number of TCP ports may have a harder time to work.  For example, it
   has been reported that a very well know web site was using AJAX
   techniques and was opening up to 69 TCP ports per web page.  If we



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   make the hypothesis of an address space reduction of a factor 100
   (one IPv4 address per 100 customers), and 65k ports per IPv4
   addresses available, that makes an average of N = 650 ports available
   simultaneously to be shared among the various devices behind the
   dual-stack lite tunnel end-point.

   There is an important operational difference if those N ports are
   pre-allocated in a cookie-cutter fashion versus allocated on demand
   by incoming connections.  This is a difference between an average of
   N ports and a maximum of N ports.  Several service providers have
   reported an average number of connections per customer in the single
   digits.  At the opposite end, thousands or tens of thousands of ports
   could be use in a peak by any single customer browsing a number of
   AJAX/Web 2.0 sites.

   As such, service providers allocating a fixed number of ports per
   user should dimension the system with a minimum of N = several
   thousands of ports for every user.  This would bring the address
   space reduction ratio to a single digit.  Service providers using a
   smaller number of ports per user (N in the hundreds) should expect
   customers applications to break in a more or less random way over
   time.

   In order to achieve higher address space reduction ratios, it is
   recommended that service provider do not use this cookie-cutter
   approach, and, on the contrary, allocate ports as dynamically as
   possible, just like on a regular NAT.  With an average number of
   connections per customers in the single digit, having an address
   space reduction of a factor 100 is realistic.  However, service
   providers should exercise caution and make sure their pool of port
   numbers does not go too low.  The actual maximum address space
   reduction factor is unknown at this time.

8.4.2.  Dynamic port assignment considerations

   When dynamic port assignment is used to maximize the number of
   subscribers sharing the AFTR global IPv4 addresses, the AFTR should
   implement checks to avoid DOS attack through exhaustion of available
   ports.  It should also avoid mapping any one subscriber's "flows"
   across more than one global IPv4 address.

8.4.3.  Subscriber controlled port assignment

   Dynamic port assignment precludes inbound access to subscriber
   servers, just as in a CPE NAT.  Inbound access to subscriber servers
   can be provided through pre-assigned and/or reserved port mappings in
   the AFTR.  Specifying the mechanisms for managing and signaling these
   reserved port mappings is out of scope for this document.



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


8.5.  Other considerations about sharing global IPv4 addresses

   More considerations on sharing the port space of IPv4 addresses can
   be found in [I-D.ford-shared-addressing-issues].


9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the role of Mark Townsley for
   his input on the overall architecture of this technology by pointing
   this work in the direction of [I-D.droms-softwires-snat].  Note that
   this document results from a merging of [I-D.durand-dual-stack-lite]
   and [I-D.droms-softwires-snat].Also to be acknowledged are the many
   discussions with a number of people including Shin Miyakawa,
   Katsuyasu Toyama, Akihide Hiura, Takashi Uematsu, Tetsutaro Hara,
   Yasunori Matsubayashi, Ichiro Mizukoshi.  The author would also like
   to thank David Ward, Jari Arkko, Thomas Narten and Geoff Huston for
   their constructive feedback.  Special thanks go to Dave Thaler and
   Dan Wing for their reviews and comments.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This draft request IANA to allocate a well know IPv4 192.0.0.0/29
   network prefix.  That range is used to number the dual-stack lite
   interfaces.  Reserving a /29 allows for 6 possible interfaces on a
   multi-home node.  The IPv4 address 192.0.0.1 is reserved as the IPv4
   address of the default router for such dual-stack lite hosts.


11.  Security Considerations

   Security issues associated with NAT have long been documented.  See
   [RFC2663] and [RFC2993].

   However, moving the NAT functionality from the CPE to the core of the
   service provider network and sharing IPv4 addresses among customers
   create additional requirements when logging data for abuse usage.
   With any architecture where an IPv4 address does not uniquely
   represent an end host, IPv4 addresses and a timestamps are no longer
   sufficient to identify a particular broadband customer.  Additional
   information such as transport protocol information will be required
   for that purpose.  For example, we suggest to log the transport port
   number for TCP and UDP connections.

   The AFTR performs translation functions for interior IPv4 hosts at
   RFC 1918 addresses or at the IANA reserved address range (TBA by
   IANA).  If the interior host is properly using the authorized IPv4



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   address with the authorized transport protocol port range such as A+P
   semantic for the tunnel, the AFTR can simply forward without
   translation to permit the authorized address and port range to
   function properly.  All packets with unauthorized interior IPv4
   addresses or with authorized interior IPv4 address but unauthorized
   port range MUST NOT be forwarded by the AFTR.  This prevents rogue
   devices from launching denial of service attacks using unauthorized
   public IPv4 addresses in the IPv4 source header field or unauthorized
   transport port range in the IPv4 transport header field.  For
   example, rogue devices could bombard a public web server by launching
   TCP SYN ACK attack.  The victim will receive TCP SYN from random IPv4
   source addresses at a rapid rate and deny TCP services to legitimate
   users.

   With IPv4 addresses shared by multiple users, ports become a critical
   resource.  As such, some mechanisms need to be put in place by an
   AFTR to limit port usage, either by rate-limiting new connections or
   putting a hard limit on the maximum number of port usable by single
   user.  If this number is high enough, it should not interfere with
   normal usage and still provide reasonable protection of the shared
   pool.  More considerations on ports allocation and port exhaustion
   can be found in section 8.4.

   More considerations on sharing IPv4 addresses can be found in
   "I-D.ford-shared-addressing-issues".

   AFTRs should support ways to limit service to registered customers.
   If strict IPv6 ingress filtering is deployed in the broadband network
   to prevent IPv6 address spoofing and dual-stack lite service is
   restricted to those customers, then tunnels terminating at the AFTR
   and coming from registered customer IPv6 addresses cannot be spoofed.
   Thus a simple access control list on the tunnel transport source
   address is all that is required to accept traffic on the southbound
   interface of an AFTR.

   If IPv6 address spoofing prevention is not in place, the AFTR should
   perform further sanity checks on the IPv6 address of incoming IPv6
   packets.  For example, it should check if the address has really been
   allocated to an authorized customer.


12.  Appendix A: Deployment considerations

12.1.  AFTR service distribution and horizontal scaling

   One of the key benefits of the dual-stack lite technology lies in the
   fact it is tunnel based.  That is, tunnel end-points may be anywhere
   in the service provider network.



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   Using the DHCPv6 tunnel end-point option, service providers can
   create groups of users sharing the same AFTR.  Those groups can be
   merged or divided at will.  This leads to an horizontally scaled
   solution, where more capacity is added simply by adding more boxes.
   As those groups of users can evolve over time, it is best to make
   sure that AFTRs do not require per-user configuration in order to
   provide service.

12.2.  Horizontal scaling

   A service provider can start using just a few AFTR centrally located.
   Later, when more capacity is needed, more boxes can be added and
   pushed to the edges of the access network.  In case of a spike of
   traffic, for example during the Olympic games or an important
   political event, capacity can be quickly added in any location of the
   network (tunnels can terminate anywhere) simply by splitting user
   groups.  Extra capacity can be later removed when the traffic returns
   to normal by resetting the DHCPv6 tunnel end-point settings.

12.3.  High availability

   An important element in the design of the dual-stack lite technology
   is the simplicity of implementation on the customer side.  A simple
   IP4-in-IPv6 tunnel and a default route over it is all is needed to
   get IPv4 connectivity.  Dealing with high availability is the
   responsibility of the service provider, not the customer devices
   implementing dual-stack lite.  As such, a single IPv6 address of the
   tunnel end-point is provided in the DHCPv6 option defined in
   [I-D.ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option].  The service provider can
   use techniques such as anycast or various types of clusters to ensure
   availability of the IPv4 service.  The exact synchronization (or lack
   thereof) between redundant AFTRs is out of scope for this document.

12.4.  Logging

   DS-Lite AFTR implementation should offer the possility to log NAT
   binding creations or other ways to keep track of the ports/IP
   addresses used by customers.  This is both to support
   troubleshooting, which is very important to service providers trying
   to figure out why something may not be working, as well as to meet
   region-specific requirements for responding to legally-binding
   requests for information from law enforcement authorities.


13.  Appendix B: Examples






Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


13.1.  Gateway based architecture

   This architecture is targeted at residential broadband deployments
   but can be adapted easily to other types of deployment where the
   installed base of IPv4-only devices is important.

   Consider a scenario where a Dual-Stack lite CPE is provisioned only
   with IPv6 in the WAN port, no IPv4.  The CPE acts as an IPv4 DCHP
   server for the LAN network (wireline and wireless) handing out
   RFC1918 addresses.  In addition, the CPE may support IPv6 Auto-
   Configuration and/or DHCPv6 server for the LAN network.  When an
   IPv4-only device connects to the CPE, that CPE will hand it out a
   RFC1918 address.  When a dual-stack capable device connects to the
   CPE, that CPE will hand out a RFC1918 address and a global IPv6
   address to the device.  Besides, the CPE will create an IPv4-in-IPv6
   softwire tunnel [RFC5571]to an AFTR that resides in the service
   provider network.

   When the device accesses IPv6 service, it will send the IPv6 datagram
   to the CPE natively.  The CPE will route the traffic upstream to the
   default gateway.

   When the device accesses IPv4 service, it will source the IPv4
   datagram with the RFC1918 address and send the IPv4 datagram to the
   CPE.  The CPE will encapsulate the IPv4 datagram inside the IPv4-in-
   IPv6 softwire tunnel and forward the IPv6 datagram to the AFTR.  This
   contrasts what the CPE normally does today, which is, NAT the RFC1918
   address to the public IPv4 address and route the datagram upstream.
   When the AFTR receives the IPv6 datagram, it will decapsulate the
   IPv6 header and perform an IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT on the source address.

   As illustrated in Figure 1, this dual-stack lite deployment model
   consists of three components: the dual-stack lite home router with a
   B4 element, the AFTR and a softwire between the B4 element acting as
   softwire initiator (SI) [RFC5571] in the dual-stack lite home router
   and the softwire concentrator (SC) [RFC5571] in the AFTR.  The AFTR
   performs IPv4-IPv4 NAT translations to multiplex multiple subscribers
   through a pool of global IPv4 address.  Overlapping address spaces
   used by subscribers are disambiguated through the identification of
   tunnel endpoints.











Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


                   +-----------+
                   |    Host   |
                   +-----+-----+
                         |10.0.0.1
                         |
                         |
                         |10.0.0.2
               +---------|---------+
               |         |         |
               |    Home router    |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||       B4        ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               +--------|||--------+
                        |||2001:db8:0:1::1
                        |||
                        |||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire
                        |||
                 -------|||-------
               /        |||        \
              |   ISP core network  |
               \        |||        /
                 -------|||-------
                        |||
                        |||2001:db8:0:2::1
               +--------|||--------+
               |        AFTR       |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||   Concentrator  ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               |       |NAT|       |
               |       +-+-+       |
               +---------|---------+
                         |192.0.2.1
                         |
                 --------|--------
               /         |         \
              |       Internet      |
               \         |         /
                 --------|--------
                         |
                         |198.51.100.1
                   +-----+-----+
                   | IPv4 Host |
                   +-----------+

                   Figure 1: gateway-based architecture




Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   Notes:

   o  The dual-stack lite home router is not required to be on the same
      link as the host

   o  The dual-stack lite home router could be replaced by a dual-stack
      lite router in the service provider network

   The resulting solution accepts an IPv4 datagram that is translated
   into an IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire datagram for transmission across the
   softwire.  At the corresponding endpoint, the IPv4 datagram is
   decapsulated, and the translated IPv4 address is inserted based on a
   translation from the softwire.

13.1.1.  Example message flow

   In the example shown in Figure 2, the translation tables in the AFTR
   is configured to forward between IP/TCP (10.0.0.1/10000) and IP/TCP
   (192.0.2.1/5000).  That is, a datagram received by the dual-stack
   lite home router from the host at address 10.0.0.1, using TCP DST
   port 10000 will be translated a datagram with IP SRC address
   192.0.2.1 and TCP SRC port 5000 in the Internet.





























Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


                   +-----------+
                   |    Host   |
                   +-----+-----+
                      |  |10.0.0.1
      IPv4 datagram 1 |  |
                      |  |
                      v  |10.0.0.2
               +---------|---------+
               |         |         |
               |    home router    |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||        B4       ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               +--------|||--------+
                      | |||2001:db8:0:1::1
       IPv6 datagram 2| |||
                      | |||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire
                      | |||
                 -----|-|||-------
               /      | |||        \
              |   ISP core network  |
               \      | |||        /
                 -----|-|||-------
                      | |||
                      | |||2001:db8:0:2::1
               +------|-|||--------+
               |      | AFTR       |
               |      v |||        |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||  Concentrartor  ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               |       |NAT|       |
               |       +-+-+       |
               +---------|---------+
                      |  |192.0.2.1
      IPv4 datagram 3 |  |
                      |  |
                 -----|--|--------
               /      |  |         \
              |       Internet      |
               \      |  |         /
                 -----|--|--------
                      |  |
                      v  |198.51.100.1
                   +-----+-----+
                   | IPv4 Host |
                   +-----------+




Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


                        Figure 2: Outbound Datagram

           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+
           |        Datagram | Header field | Contents        |
           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+
           | IPv4 datagram 1 |     IPv4 Dst | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |     IPv4 Src | 10.0.0.1        |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 80              |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 10000           |
           | --------------- | ------------ | -------------   |
           | IPv6 Datagram 2 |     IPv6 Dst | 2001:db8:0:2::1 |
           |                 |     IPv6 Src | 2001:db8:0:1::1 |
           |                 |     IPv4 Dst | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |     IPv4 Src | 10.0.0.1        |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 80              |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 10000           |
           | --------------- | ------------ | -------------   |
           | IPv4 datagram 3 |     IPv4 Dst | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |     IPv4 Src | 192.0.2.1       |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 80              |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 5000            |
           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+

                         Datagram header contents

   When datagram 1 is received by the dual-stack lite home router, the
   B4 function encapsulates the datagram in datagram 2 and forwards it
   to the dual-stack lite carrier-grade NAT over the softwire.

   When it receives datagram 2, the tunnel concentrator in the AFTR
   hands the IPv4 datagram to the NAT, which determines from its
   translation table that the datagram received on Softwire_1 with TCP
   SRC port 10000 should be translated to datagram 3 with IP SRC address
   192.0.2.1 and TCP SRC port 5000.

   Figure 3 shows an inbound message received at the AFTR.  When the NAT
   function in the AFTR receives datagram 1, it looks up the IP/TCP DST
   in its translation table.  In the example in Figure 3, the NAT
   translates the TCP DST port to 10000, sets the IP DST address to
   10.0.0.1 and hands the datagram to the SC for transmission over
   Softwire_1.  The B4 in the home router decapsulates IPv4 datagram
   from the inbound softwire datagram, and forwards it to the host.









Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


                   +-----------+
                   |    Host   |
                   +-----+-----+
                      ^  |10.0.0.1
      IPv4 datagram 3 |  |
                      |  |
                      |  |10.0.0.2
               +---------|---------+
               |       +-+-+       |
               |    home router    |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||        B4       ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               +--------|||--------+
                      ^ |||2001:db8:0:1::1
      IPv6 datagram 2 | |||
                      | |||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire
                      | |||
                 -----|-|||-------
               /      | |||        \
              |   ISP core network  |
               \      | |||        /
                 -----|-|||-------
                      | |||
                      | |||2001:db8:0:2::1
               +------|-|||--------+
               |       AFTR        |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||   Concentrator  ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               |       |NAT|       |
               |       +-+-+       |
               +---------|---------+
                      ^  |192.0.2.1
      IPv4 datagram 1 |  |
                      |  |
                 -----|--|--------
               /      |  |         \
              |       Internet      |
               \      |  |         /
                 -----|--|--------
                      |  |
                      |  |198.51.100.1
                   +-----+-----+
                   | IPv4 Host |
                   +-----------+

                        Figure 3: Inbound Datagram



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+
           |        Datagram | Header field | Contents        |
           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+
           | IPv4 datagram 1 |     IPv4 Dst | 192.0.2.1       |
           |                 |     IPv4 Src | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 5000            |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 80              |
           | --------------- | ------------ | -------------   |
           | IPv6 Datagram 2 |     IPv6 Dst | 2001:db8:0:1::1 |
           |                 |     IPv6 Src | 2001:db8:0:2::1 |
           |                 |     IPv4 Dst | 10.0.0.1        |
           |                 |       IP Src | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 10000           |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 80              |
           | --------------- | ------------ | -------------   |
           | IPv4 datagram 3 |     IPv4 Dst | 10.0.0.1        |
           |                 |     IPv4 Src | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 10000           |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 80              |
           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+

                         Datagram header contents

13.1.2.  Translation details

   The AFTR has a NAT that translates between softwire/port pairs and
   IPv4-address/port pairs.  The same translation is applied to IPv4
   datagrams received on the device's external interface and from the
   softwire endpoint in the device.

   In Figure 2, the translator network interface in the AFTR is on the
   Internet, and the softwire interface connects to the dual-stack lite
   home router.  The AFTR translator is configured as follows:

   Network interface:  Translate IPv4 destination address and TCP
      destination port to the softwire identifier and TCP destination
      port

   Softwire interface:  Translate softwire identifier and TCP source
      port to IPv4 source address and TCP source port

   Here is how the translation in Figure 3 works:

   o  Datagram 1 is received on the AFTR translator network interface.
      The translator looks up the IPv4-address/port pair in its
      translator table, rewrites the IPv4 destination address to
      10.0.0.1 and the TCP source port to 10000, and hands the datagram
      to the SE to be forwarded over the softwire.



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   o  The IPv4 datagram is received on the dual-stack lite home router
      B4.  The B4 function extracts the IPv4 datagram and the dual-stack
      lite home router forwards datagram 3 to the host.

        +------------------------------------+--------------------+
        |         Softwire-Id/IPv4/Prot/Port | IPv4/Prot/Port     |
        +------------------------------------+--------------------+
        | 2001:db8:0:1::1/10.0.0.1/TCP/10000 | 192.0.2.1/TCP/5000 |
        +------------------------------------+--------------------+

            Dual-Stack lite carrier-grade NAT translation table

   The Softwire-Id is the IPv6 address assigned to the Dual-Stack lite
   CPE.  Hosts behind the same Dual-Stack lite home router have the same
   Softwire-Id.  The source IPv4 is the RFC1918 addressed assigned by
   the Dual-Stack home router which is unique to each host behind the
   CPE.  The AFTR would receive packets sourced from different IPv4
   addresses in the same softwire tunnel.  The AFTR combines the
   Softwire-Id and IPv4 address/Port [Softwire-Id, IPv4+Port] to
   uniquely identify the host behind the same Dual-Stack lite home
   router.

13.2.  Host based architecture

   This architecture is targeted at new, large scale deployments of
   dual-stack capable devices implementing a dual-stack lite interface.

   Consider a scenario where a Dual-Stack lite host device is directly
   connected to the service provider network.  The host device is dual-
   stack capable but only provisioned an IPv6 global address.  Besides,
   the host device will pre-configure a well-known IPv4 non-routable
   address (see IANA section).  This well-known IPv4 non-routable
   address is similar to the 127.0.0.1 loopback address.  Every host
   device implemented Dual-Stack lite will pre-configure the same
   address.  This address will be used to source the IPv4 datagram when
   the device accesses IPv4 services.  Besides, the host device will
   create an IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire tunnel to an AFTR.  The Carrier Grade
   NAT will reside in the service provider network.

   When the device accesses IPv6 service, the device will send the IPv6
   datagram natively to the default gateway.

   When the device accesses IPv4 service, it will source the IPv4
   datagram with the well-known non-routable IPv4 address.  Then, the
   host device will encapsulate the IPv4 datagram inside the IPv4-in-
   IPv6 softwire tunnel and send the IPv6 datagram to the AFTR.  When
   the AFTR receives the IPv6 datagram, it will decapsulate the IPv6
   header and perform IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT on the source address.



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   This scenario works on both wireline and wireless networks.  A
   typical wireless device will connect directly to the service provider
   without CPE in between.

   As illustrated in Figure 4, this dual-stack lite deployment model
   consists of three components: the dual-stack lite host, the AFTR and
   a softwire between the softwire initiator B4 in the host and the
   softwire concentrator in the AFTR.  The dual-stack lite host is
   assumed to have IPv6 service and can exchange IPv6 traffic with the
   AFTR.

   The AFTR performs IPv4-IPv4 NAT translations to multiplex multiple
   subscribers through a pool of global IPv4 address.  Overlapping IPv4
   address spaces used by the dual-stack lite hosts are disambiguated
   through the identification of tunnel endpoints.

   In this situation, the dual-stack lite host configures the IPv4
   address 192.0.0.2 out of the well-known range 192.0.0.0/29 (defined
   by IANA) on its B4 interface.  It also configure the first non-
   reserved IPv4 address of the reserved range, 192.0.0.1 as the address
   of its default gateway.






























Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


               +-------------------+
               |                   |
               |  Host 192.0.0.2   |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||        B4       ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               +--------|||--------+
                        |||2001:db8:0:1::1
                        |||
                        |||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire
                        |||
                 -------|||-------
               /        |||        \
              |   ISP core network  |
               \        |||        /
                 -------|||-------
                        |||
                        |||2001:db8:0:2::1
               +--------|||--------+
               |       AFTR        |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||  Concentrator   ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               |       |NAT|       |
               |       +-+-+       |
               +---------|---------+
                         |192.0.2.1
                         |
                 --------|--------
               /         |         \
              |       Internet      |
               \         |         /
                 --------|--------
                         |
                         |198.51.100.1
                   +-----+-----+
                   | IPv4 Host |
                   +-----------+

                     Figure 4: host-based architecture

   The resulting solution accepts an IPv4 datagram that is translated
   into an IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire datagram for transmission across the
   softwire.  At the corresponding endpoint, the IPv4 datagram is
   decapsulated, and the translated IPv4 address is inserted based on a
   translation from the softwire.





Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


13.2.1.  Example message flow

   In the example shown in Figure 5, the translation tables in the AFTR
   is configured to forward between IP/TCP (a.b.c.d/10000) and IP/TCP
   (192.0.2.1/5000).  That is, a datagram received from the host at
   address 192.0.0.2, using TCP DST port 10000 will be translated a
   datagram with IP SRC address 192.0.2.1 and TCP SRC port 5000 in the
   Internet.











































Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


               +-------------------+
               |                   |
               |Host 192.0.0.2     |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||        B4       ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               +--------|||--------+
                      | |||2001:db8:0:1::1
       IPv6 datagram 1| |||
                      | |||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire
                      | |||
                 -----|-|||-------
               /      | |||        \
              |   ISP core network  |
               \      | |||        /
                 -----|-|||-------
                      | |||
                      | |||2001:db8:0:2::1
               +------|-|||--------+
               |      | AFTR       |
               |      v |||        |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||  Concentrator   ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               |       |NAT|       |
               |       +-+-+       |
               +---------|---------+
                      |  |192.0.2.1
      IPv4 datagram 2 |  |
                 -----|--|--------
               /      |  |         \
              |       Internet      |
               \      |  |         /
                 -----|--|--------
                      |  |
                      v  |198.51.100.1
                   +-----+-----+
                   | IPv4 Host |
                   +-----------+

                        Figure 5: Outbound Datagram










Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+
           |        Datagram | Header field | Contents        |
           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+
           | IPv6 Datagram 1 |     IPv6 Dst | 2001:db8:0:2::1 |
           |                 |     IPv6 Src | 2001:db8:0:1::1 |
           |                 |     IPv4 Dst | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |     IPv4 Src | a.b.c.d         |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 80              |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 10000           |
           | --------------- | ------------ | -------------   |
           | IPv4 datagram 2 |     IPv4 Dst | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |     IPv4 Src | 192.0.2.1       |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 80              |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 5000            |
           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+

                         Datagram header contents

   When sending an IPv4 packet, the dual-stack lite host encapsulates it
   in datagram 1 and forwards it to the AFTR over the softwire.

   When it receives datagram 1, the concentrator in the AFTR hands the
   IPv4 datagram to the NAT, which determines from its translation table
   that the datagram received on Softwire_1 with TCP SRC port 10000
   should be translated to datagram 3 with IP SRC address 192.0.2.1 and
   TCP SRC port 5000.

   Figure 6 shows an inbound message received at the AFTR.  When the NAT
   function in the AFTR receives datagram 1, it looks up the IP/TCP DST
   in its translation table.  In the example in Figure 3, the NAT
   translates the TCP DST port to 10000, sets the IP DST address to
   a.b.c.d and hands the datagram to the concentrator for transmission
   over Softwire_1.  The B4 in the dual-stack lite hosts decapsulates
   IPv4 datagram from the inbound softwire datagram, and forwards it to
   the host.
















Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


               +-------------------+
               |                   |
               |Host 192.0.0.2     |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||        B4       ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               +--------|||--------+
                      ^ |||2001:db8:0:1::1
      IPv6 datagram 2 | |||
                      | |||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire
                      | |||
                 -----|-|||-------
               /      | |||        \
              |   ISP core network  |
               \      | |||        /
                 -----|-|||-------
                      | |||
                      | |||2001:db8:0:2::1
               +------|-|||--------+
               |       AFTR        |
               |      | |||        |
               |+--------+--------+|
               ||  Concentrator   ||
               |+--------+--------+|
               |       |NAT|       |
               |       +-+-+       |
               +---------|---------+
                      ^  |192.0.2.1
      IPv4 datagram 1 |  |
                 -----|--|--------
               /      |  |         \
              |       Internet      |
               \      |  |         /
                 -----|--|--------
                      |  |
                      |  |198.51.100.1
                   +-----+-----+
                   | IPv4 Host |
                   +-----------+

                        Figure 6: Inbound Datagram










Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+
           |        Datagram | Header field | Contents        |
           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+
           | IPv4 datagram 1 |     IPv4 Dst | 192.0.2.1       |
           |                 |     IPv4 Src | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 5000            |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 80              |
           | --------------- | ------------ | -------------   |
           | IPv6 Datagram 2 |     IPv6 Dst | 2001:db8:0:1::1 |
           |                 |     IPv6 Src | 2001:db8:0:2::1 |
           |                 |     IPv4 Dst | a.b.c.d         |
           |                 |       IP Src | 198.51.100.1    |
           |                 |      TCP Dst | 10000           |
           |                 |      TCP Src | 80              |
           +-----------------+--------------+-----------------+

                         Datagram header contents

13.2.2.  Translation details

   The translations happening in the AFTR are the same as in the
   previous examples.  The well known IPv4 address 192.0.0.2 out of the
   192.0.0.0/29 (defined by IANA) range used by all the hosts are
   disambiguated by the IPv6 source address of the softwire.

        +-----------------------------------+--------------------+
        |        Softwire-Id/IPv4/Prot/Port | IPv4/Prot/Port     |
        +-----------------------------------+--------------------+
        | 2001:db8:0:1::1/a.b.c.d/TCP/10000 | 192.0.2.1/TCP/5000 |
        +-----------------------------------+--------------------+

            Dual-Stack lite carrier-grade NAT translation table

   The Softwire-Id is the IPv6 address assigned to the Dual-Stack host.
   Each host has an unique Softwire-Id.  The source IPv4 address is one
   of the well-known IPv4 address.  The AFTR could receive packets from
   different hosts sourced from the same IPv4 well-known address from
   different softwire tunnels.  Similar to the gateway architecture, the
   AFTR combines the Softwire-Id and IPv4 address/Port [Softwire-Id,
   IPv4+Port] to uniquely identify the individual host.


14.  Appendix C: Related DS-Lite work on port management

   Techniques discussed below are not part of the core dual-stack lite
   specification and may or may not be standardized in separate
   documents.  They are only listed here for reference.




Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   Applications expecting incoming connections, such a peer-to-peer
   applications, have become popular.  Those applications use a very
   limited number of ports, usually a single one.  Making sure those
   applications keep working in a dual-stack lite environment is
   important.  Similarly, there is a growing list of applications that
   require some kind of ALG to work through a NAT.  Service provider
   AFTRs should not prevent the deployment of such applications.  As
   such, there is a legitimate need to leave certain ports under the
   control of the end user or its applications.  This argues for a
   hybrid environment, where most ports are dynamically managed by the
   AFTR in a shared pool and a limited number are dedicated per users
   and controlled by them.

   The details of how ports can be controlled by users and applications
   are beyond the scope of this document.  For reference, the A+P
   [I-D.ymbk-aplusp] model where an address and a set of ports are
   assigned to users has been extensively discussed.  User controled
   techniques for port allocation via a service provider portal or a
   DHCPv6 option [I-D.bajko-v6ops-port-restricted-ipaddr-assign] have
   been proposed.  Techniques using some form of port control protocol
   such as UPnP [UPnP-IGD], NAT-PMP [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp] and PCP
   [I-D.wing-softwire-port-control-protocol] are under discussion to
   enable a direct communication beetween applications and the service
   provider NAT.


15.  References

15.1.  Normative references

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option]
              Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration
              Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Options for Dual- Stack Lite",
              draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-03 (work in
              progress), June 2010.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2473]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
              IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


              for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

   [RFC5625]  Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
              BCP 152, RFC 5625, August 2009.

15.2.  Informative references

   [I-D.bajko-v6ops-port-restricted-ipaddr-assign]
              Bajko, G. and T. Savolainen, "Port Restricted IP Address
              Assignment",
              draft-bajko-v6ops-port-restricted-ipaddr-assign-02 (work
              in progress), November 2008.

   [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp]
              Cheshire, S., "NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP)",
              draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-03 (work in progress), April 2008.

   [I-D.droms-softwires-snat]
              Droms, R. and B. Haberman, "Softwires Network Address
              Translation (SNAT)", draft-droms-softwires-snat-01 (work
              in progress), July 2008.

   [I-D.durand-dual-stack-lite]
              Durand, A., "Dual-stack lite broadband deployments post
              IPv4 exhaustion", draft-durand-dual-stack-lite-00 (work in
              progress), July 2008.

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

   [I-D.nishitani-cgn]
              Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., and H. Ashida,
              "Common requirements for IP address sharing schemes",
              draft-nishitani-cgn-05 (work in progress), July 2010.

   [I-D.templin-seal]
              Templin, F., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation
              Layer (SEAL)", draft-templin-seal-23 (work in progress),
              August 2008.

   [I-D.wing-softwire-port-control-protocol]
              Wing, D., Penno, R., and M. Boucadair, "Pinhole Control
              Protocol (PCP)",
              draft-wing-softwire-port-control-protocol-02 (work in
              progress), July 2010.



Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


   [I-D.ymbk-aplusp]
              Bush, R., "The A+P Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage",
              draft-ymbk-aplusp-05 (work in progress), October 2009.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

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

   [RFC2663]  Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
              Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
              RFC 2663, August 1999.

   [RFC2993]  Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993,
              November 2000.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [RFC5382]  Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
              Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
              RFC 5382, October 2008.

   [RFC5508]  Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
              Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
              April 2009.

   [RFC5571]  Storer, B., Pignataro, C., Dos Santos, M., Stevant, B.,
              Toutain, L., and J. Tremblay, "Softwire Hub and Spoke
              Deployment Framework with Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
              Version 2 (L2TPv2)", RFC 5571, June 2009.

   [UPnP-IGD]
              UPnP Forum, "Universal Plug and Play Internet Gateway
              Device Standardized Gateway Device Protocol",
              September 2006,
              <http://www.upnp.org/standardizeddcps/igd.asp>.











Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft               Dual-stack lite                 August 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Alain Durand
   Juniper Networks
   1194 North Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089-1206
   USA

   Email: adurand@juniper.net


   Ralph Droms
   Cisco
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA  01714
   USA

   Email: rdroms@cisco.com


   James Woodyatt
   Apple
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, CA  95014
   USA

   Email: jhw@apple.com


   Yiu Lee
   Comcast
   1, Comcast center
   Philadelphia, PA  19103
   USA

   Email: yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com















Durand, et al.          Expires February 12, 2011              [Page 34]


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