[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 01 02 03 04 05

Network Working Group                                            G. Chen
Internet-Draft                                              China Mobile
Intended status: Informational                         February 25, 2013
Expires: August 29, 2013


                Analysis of NAT64 Port Allocation Method
               draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation-01

Abstract

   The document enumerated methods of port assignment in CGN contexts,
   more focused on NAT64 environments.  The analysis categorized the
   different methods with several key features.  Corresponding to those
   features, the uses of existing protocols are also described.  The
   potential concerns and workaround have been discussed.  It's expected
   the document could provide a informative base line to help operators
   choosing a proper method.

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 August 29, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  cgn-port                   February 2013


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Port Allocation Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  NAT vs NAPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Dynamic vs Static . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.3.  Centralized vs Distributed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   3.  Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

































Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  cgn-port                   February 2013


1.  Introduction

   With the depletion of IPv4 address, CGN has been adopted by ISPs to
   expand IPv4 spaces.  Relying upon the mechanism of multiplexing
   multiple subscribers' connections over a smaller number of shared
   IPv4 addresses, CGN mapped IP addresses from one address realm to
   another, providing transparent routing to end hosts.
   [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] defined the term of CGN.  Several
   proposals including DS-Lite[RFC6333], NAT64[RFC6145], [RFC6146],
   NAT444 would likely fall into the scope.  Focusing on the topic of
   IPv6 migration, the memo elaborate the considerations in NAT64
   environment, where there IPv6-only nodes are connected.

   [RFC6269] has provided a thoughtful analysis on the issues of IP
   sharing.  It was point out that IP sharing may bring the impacts to
   law enforcement since the information of source address would be lost
   during the translation.  Network administrators have to log the
   mapping status for each connection in order to identify a specific
   user associated with an IP address.  It would post a challenge to
   operators, since it requires additional storage resource and data
   inspection process for indentifying the real users.  It's desirable
   to compact the logging information by a rational port allocation.
   Those allocation policies should consider the tradeoff between port
   utilization and log storage compression.  The document is trying to
   enumerate the several dimensions for assigning the port information.
   It's expected administrator could use those factors to determine
   their own properties.


2.  Port Allocation Management

   This section lists several factors to allocate the port information
   in NAT64 equipments.  It's likely that each allocation model would
   have an exemplified case.  The relevant issues and potential
   workarounds have also been described for each aspect.

2.1.  NAT vs NAPT

   NAT64 may not do Network Address Port Translation (NAPT), but only
   Network Address Translation (NAT).  In those cases, there is no
   concern about port assignment.  Those translation methods would
   relieve the demands of log information storage, since NAT does not
   have to administer address management with session flows.
   Furthermore, there is no requirement to maintain log when NAT64
   performing stateless translations.  Some existing practices are
   listed below from two aspects.





Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  cgn-port                   February 2013


   o  Stateful NAT

   The stateful NAT can be implemented either by static address
   translation or dynamic address translation.

   In the case of static address assignment, one-to-one address mapping
   for hosts between a IPv6 network address and an IPv4 network address
   would be pre-configured on the NAT operation.  Those cases normally
   occurred when a server deployed in a IPv6 domain.  The static
   configuration ensure the stable inbound connectivity.  The static
   method is also easier for Lawful interception system to derive the
   mapped address, since the mapping didn't change with time.

   Dynamic address assignment would periodically free the binding so
   that the global address could be recycled for later uses.  Addresses
   could be more efficiently used by time-division manner.  It only
   requires systems maintaining mappings for per-customer, other than
   per-session flow.  This method is usually adopted to reduce the log
   burden in some protocols.

   o  Stateless NAT

   The stateless NAT is performed in compliant with [RFC6145].  Public
   IPv4 address is required to be inserted in IPv6 address.  Therefore,
   NAT64 could directly extract the address and no need to record
   mapping states.  The lawful interception could likely identify the
   IPv4 address through received IPv6 address.  It's a protocol to
   eliminate the log information storage.  There are two potential
   concerns for those technologies.  First off, the static one-to-one
   mapping may didn't address the issue of IPv4 depletion.  Secondly, it
   introduced the dependency of IPv4/IPv6.  That would create new
   limitations since the change of IPv4 address would cause renumbering
   of IPv6 addresses.  Whereas, that is useful for the IDC migration
   where there is IPv6 servers pools to receive inbound connections from
   IPv4 users externally[I-D.anderson-siit-dc].

2.2.  Dynamic vs Static

   When the case comes to port assignment, there are two methods for
   port allocations.

   o  Dynamic assignment

   NAT64 normally do the dynamic assignment.  In respect to the received
   connections, ports can be allocated to each sessions.  NAT64 would do
   the dynamic approach by default, since it achieves maximum port
   utilization.  One downside for this approach is the gateway has to
   record log information for each session.  That would potentially



Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  cgn-port                   February 2013


   increase the log volume.  There is a statistic from field trials that
   the average number of connections per customer per day at
   approximately 10,000 connections.  If log system is required to store
   information for 180 days, the testing shown that the amount of data
   records would achieve 20T.

   o  Static assignment

   The static assignment make a bulk of port reservation for a specific
   address.  The bulk of port could be either a contiguous or non-
   contiguous port range for sake of attacks defense.
   [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]has described a deterministic
   NAT to reserve a port range for each specific IP address.  That is a
   significant improvement for lightening log volume.  However, a trade-
   off should be made when administor has to consider the port
   utilization.  For the administor who prioritize the port utilization,
   dynamic assignment maybe a suitable solution for them.  Another
   consideration is using Address-Dependent Mapping or Address and Port-
   Dependent Mapping[RFC4787] to increase the port utilization.  This
   feature has already been implemented as vendor-specific features.
   Whereas, it should be noted that REQ-7, REQ-12
   in[I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] may reduce the incentivesr.

2.3.  Centralized vs Distributed

   There are increasing needs to connect NAT64 with downstream NAT46-
   capable CE devices to support IPv4 hosts/applications in a IPv6-only
   access.  Several solutions have been proposed in this area, e.g.
   464xlat[I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat], MAP-T[I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t] and
   4rd[I-D.ietf-softwire-4rd].  With the feature of double-translation,
   the port allocation can be managed as a centralized way on NAT64 or
   distributed to downstream devices(e.g, CPE connected with NAT64) .

   o  Centralized Assignment

   A centralized method would make port assignments when traffic come to
   NAT64.  The allocation policy is enforced on a centralized gateway.
   Either a dynamic or static port assignment is made for received
   sessions.

   o  Distributed Assignment

   NAT64 could also delegate the pre-allocated port range to customer
   edge devices.  That can be achieved through additional out-band
   provisioning signals(e.g.[I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
   ,[I-D.tsou-pcp-natcoord][I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]).  The
   distributed model normally performed A+P style for static port
   assignment.  NAT64 should hold the corresponding mapping in



Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  cgn-port                   February 2013


   accordance with assigned ports.  Those methods could shift NAT64 port
   computation/states into downstream devices.  The detailed benefits
   was documented in [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation].


3.  Discussions

   With demands of reducing log volume, there are several approaches of
   port assignment described in the aforementioned sections.  It could
   be found that a trade-off between maximum port utilization and log
   volume always exist to justify the use of different solutions.  In
   respect to difference of port assignment, the granularity of log
   could be ranked as per-session, per-port-bulk, per-customer and None.
   With the reduction of log volume, port utilization ratio is likely
   decreased.  Therefore, the decision should be made if there is a
   quantitative statistic to evaluate what is gain from reducing log
   volume and loss from decreasing port utilization.  Those data
   analysis is planned to be added after further lab testing.  Operators
   could choose the proper method considering following:

   o  Average connectivities per customer per day

   o  Peak connectivities per day

   o  The amount of public IPv4 address in NAT64

   o  Application demands for specific ports

   o  The parallel processing capabilities of NAT64

   o  The tolerance of Log volume

   Apart from above, the port allocation can be tuned corresponding to
   the phase of IPv6 migration.  The use of NAT64 would advance IPv6,
   because it provides everyone incentives to use IPv6, and eventually
   the result is an end-to-end IPv6-only networks with no needs for
   IPv4.  As more content providers and service are available over IPv6,
   the utilization on NAT64 goes down since fewer destinations require
   translation progressing.  In the trend of decreased IPv4 connections,
   NAT64 could relax the multiplexing ratio of shared IPv4 address by
   either a delivered message or a centralized control .  A load for log
   system can also be relieved due to simplified mapping states.


4.  Security Considerations

   TBD




Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  cgn-port                   February 2013


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]
              Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
              Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)",
              draft-ietf-pcp-base-29 (work in progress), November 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]
              Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Bao, C., Dec, W., Yeh, L., and
              X. Deng, "DHCPv6 Options for Mapping of Address and Port",
              draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-02 (work in progress),
              February 2013.

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

   [RFC6145]  Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
              Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.

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

6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.anderson-siit-dc]
              Anderson, T., "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation in IPv6 Data
              Centre Environments", draft-anderson-siit-dc-00 (work in
              progress), November 2012.

   [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]
              Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., Sundaresan, K.,
              and O. Vautrin, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce
              Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments",
              draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-05 (work in
              progress), January 2013.



Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  cgn-port                   February 2013


   [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]
              Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
              and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs
              (CGNs)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-10 (work in
              progress), December 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-4rd]
              Jiang, S., Despres, R., Penno, R., Lee, Y., Chen, G., and
              M. Chen, "IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - a Stateless
              Solution (4rd)", draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04 (work in
              progress), October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-t]
              Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Troan, O., Matsushima, S., and
              T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
              Translation (MAP-T)", draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-01 (work
              in progress), February 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation]
              Boucadair, M., Matsushima, S., Lee, Y., Bonness, O.,
              Borges, I., and G. Chen, "Motivations for Carrier-side
              Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions",
              draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05 (work in
              progress), November 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]
              Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-10 (work in progress),
              February 2013.

   [I-D.tsou-pcp-natcoord]
              Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Deng, X., Zhou, C., Tsou, T., and
              S. Perreault, "Using PCP To Coordinate Between the CGN and
              Home Gateway", draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09 (work in
              progress), November 2012.

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











Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  cgn-port                   February 2013


Author's Address

   Gang Chen
   China Mobile
   53A,Xibianmennei Ave.,
   Xuanwu District,
   Beijing  100053
   China

   Email: phdgang@gmail.com









































Chen                     Expires August 29, 2013                [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/