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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 7422

Network Working Group                                          C. Donley
Internet-Draft                                                 CableLabs
Intended status: Informational                             C. Grundemann
Expires: July 17, 2014                                  Internet Society
                                                              V. Sarawat
                                                           K. Sundaresan
                                                               CableLabs
                                                              O. Vautrin
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                        January 13, 2014


  Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce Logging in Carrier Grade NAT
                              Deployments
                draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-07

Abstract

   In some instances, Service Providers have a legal logging requirement
   to be able to map a subscriber's inside address with the address used
   on the public Internet (e.g. for abuse response).  Unfortunately,
   many Carrier Grade NAT logging solutions require active logging of
   dynamic translations.  Carrier Grade NAT port assignments are often
   per-connection, but could optionally use port ranges.  Research
   indicates that per-connection logging is not scalable in many
   residential broadband services.  This document suggests a way to
   manage Carrier Grade NAT translations in such a way as to
   significantly reduce the amount of logging required while providing
   traceability for abuse response.  While the authors acknowledge that
   IPv6 is a preferred solution, Carrier Grade NAT is a reality in many
   networks, and is needed in situations where either customer equipment
   or Internet content only supports IPv4; this approach should in no
   way slow the deployment of IPv6.

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].

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




Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   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 July 17, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Deterministic Port Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  IPv4 Port Utilization Efficiency  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Planning & Dimensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Deterministic CGN Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Additional Logging Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.  Failover Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Impact on the IPv6 Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain new IPv4 address
   assignments from Regional/Local Internet Registries due to depleting
   supplies of unallocated IPv4 address space.  To meet the growing



Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   demand for Internet connectivity from new subscribers, devices, and
   service types, some operators will be forced to share a single public
   IPv4 address among multiple subscribers using techniques such as
   Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGN) [RFC6264] (e.g.,
   NAT444 [I-D.shirasaki-nat444], DS-Lite [RFC6333], NAT64 [RFC6146]
   etc.).  However, address sharing poses additional challenges to
   operators when considering how they manage service entitlement,
   public safety requests, or attack/abuse/fraud reports [RFC6269].  In
   order to identify a specific user associated with an IP address in
   response to such a request or for service entitlement, an operator
   will need to map a subscriber's internal source IP address and source
   port with the global public IP address and source port provided by
   the CGN for every connection initiated by the user.

   CGN connection logging satisfies the need to identify attackers and
   respond to abuse/public safety requests, but it imposes significant
   operational challenges to operators.  In lab testing, we have
   observed CGN log messages to be approximately 150 bytes long for
   NAT444 [I-D.shirasaki-nat444], and 175 bytes for DS-Lite [RFC6333]
   (individual log messages vary somewhat in size).  Although we are not
   aware of definitive studies of connection rates per subscriber,
   reports from several operators in the US sets the average number of
   connections per household at approximately 33,000 connections per
   day.  If each connection is individually logged, this translates to a
   data volume of approximately 5 MB per subscriber per day, or about
   150 MB per subscriber per month; however, specific data volumes may
   vary across different operators based on myriad factors.  Based on
   available data, a 1-million subscriber service provider will generate
   approximately 150 terabytes of log data per month, or 1.8 petabytes
   per year.

   The volume of log data poses a problem for both operators and the
   public safety community.  On the operator side, it requires a
   significant infrastructure investment by operators implementing CGN.
   It also requires updated operational practices to maintain the
   logging infrastructure, and requires approximately 23 Mbps of
   bandwidth between the CGN devices and the logging infrastructure per
   50,000 users.  On the public safety side, it increases the time
   required for an operator to search the logs in response to an abuse
   report, and could delay investigations.  Accordingly, an
   international group of operators and public safety officials
   approached the authors to identify a way to reduce this impact while
   improving abuse response.

   The volume of CGN logging can be reduced by assigning port ranges
   instead of individual ports.  Using this method, only the assignment
   of a new port range is logged.  This may massively reduce logging
   volume.  The log reduction may vary depending on the length of the



Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   assigned port range, whether the port range is static or dynamic,
   etc.  This has been acknowledged in [RFC6269] and
   [I-D.sivakumar-behave-nat-logging].  Per [RFC6269]:

   "Address sharing solutions may mitigate these issues to some extent
   by pre-allocating groups of ports.  Then only the allocation of the
   group needs to be recorded, and not the creation of every session
   binding within that group.  There are trade-offs to be made between
   the sizes of these port groups, the ratio of public addresses to
   subscribers, whether or not these groups timeout, and the impact on
   logging requirements and port randomization security (RFC6056)
   [RFC6056]."

   However, the existing solution still poses an impact on operators and
   public safety officials for logging and searching.  Instead, CGNs
   could be designed and/or configured to deterministically map internal
   addresses to {external address + port range} in such a way as to be
   able to algorithmically calculate the mapping.  Only inputs and
   configuration of the algorithm need to be logged.  This approach
   reduces both logging volume and subscriber identification times.  In
   some cases, when full deterministic allocation is used, this approach
   can eliminate the need for translation logging.

   This document describes a method for such CGN address mapping,
   combined with block port reservations, that significantly reduces the
   burden on operators while offering the ability to map a subscriber's
   inside IP address with an outside address and external port number
   observed on the Internet.

   The activation of the proposed port range allocation scheme is
   compliant with BEHAVE requirements such as the support of APP.

2.  Deterministic Port Ranges

   While a subscriber uses thousands of connections per day, most
   subscribers use far fewer resources at any given time.  When the
   compression ratio (see Appendix B of RFC6269 [RFC6269]) is low (e.g.,
   the ratio of the number of subscribers to the number of public IPv4
   addresses allocated to a CGN is closer to 10:1 than 1000:1), each
   subscriber could expect to have access to thousands of TCP/UDP ports
   at any given time.  Thus, as an alternative to logging each
   connection, CGNs could deterministically map customer private
   addresses (received on the customer-facing interface of the CGN,
   a.k.a., internal side) to public addresses extended with port ranges
   (used on the Internet-facing interface of the CGN, a.k.a., external
   side).  This algorithm allows an operator to identify a subscriber
   internal IP address when provided the public side IP and port number
   without having to examine the CGN translation logs.  This prevents an



Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   operator from having to transport and store massive amounts of
   session data from the CGN and then process it to identify a
   subscriber.

   The algorithmic mapping can be expressed as:

   (External IP Address, Port Range) = function 1 (Internal IP Address)

   Internal IP Address = function 2 (External IP Address, Port Number)

   The CGN SHOULD provide a method for administrators to test both
   mapping functions (e.g., enter an External IP Address + Port Number
   and receive the corresponding Internal IP Address).

   Deterministic Port Range allocation requires configuration of the
   following variables:

   o  Inside IPv4/IPv6 address range (I);

   o  Outside IPv4 address range (O);

   o  Compression ratio (e.g. inside IP addresses I/outside IP addresses
      O) (C);

   o  Dynamic address pool factor (D), to be added to the compression
      ratio in order to create an overflow address pool;

   o  Maximum ports per user (M);

   o  Address assignment algorithm (A) (see below); and

   o  Reserved TCP/UDP port list (R)

   Note: The inside address range (I) will be an IPv4 range in NAT444
   operation (NAT444 [I-D.shirasaki-nat444]) and an IPv6 range in DS-
   Lite operation (DS-Lite [RFC6333]).

   A subscriber is identified by an internal IPv4 address (e.g., NAT44)
   or an IPv6 prefix (e.g., DS-Lite or NAT64).

   The algorithm may be generalized to L2-aware NAT
   [I-D.miles-behave-l2nat] but this requires the configuration of the
   Internal interface identifiers (e.g., MAC addresses).

   The algorithm is not designed to retrieve an internal host among
   those sharing the same internal IP address (e.g., in a DS-Lite
   context, only an IPv6 address/prefix can be retrieved using the




Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   algorithm while the internal IPv4 address used for the encapsulated
   IPv4 datagram is lost).

   Several address assignment algorithms are possible.  Using predefined
   algorithms, such as those that follow, simplifies the process of
   reversing the algorithm when needed.  However, the CGN MAY support
   additional algorithms.  Also, the CGN is not required to support all
   algorithms described below.  Subscribers could be restricted to ports
   from a single IPv4 address, or could be allocated ports across all
   addresses in a pool, for example.  The following algorithms and
   corresponding values of A are as follow:

      0: Sequential (e.g. the first block goes to address 1, the second
      block to address 2, etc.)

      1: Staggered (e.g. for every n between 0 and ((65536-R)/(C+D))-1 ,
      address 1 receives ports n*C+R, address 2 receives ports
      (1+n)*C+R, etc.)

      2: Round robin (e.g. the subscriber receives the same port number
      across a pool of external IP addresses.  If the subscriber is to
      be assigned more ports than there are in the external IP pool, the
      subscriber receives the next highest port across the IP pool, and
      so on.  Thus, if there are 10 IP addresses in a pool and a
      subscriber is assigned 1000 ports, the subscriber would receive a
      range such as ports 2000-2099 across all 10 external IP
      addresses).

      3: Interlaced horizontally (e.g. each address receives every Cth
      port spread across a pool of external IP addresses).

      4: Cryptographically random port assignment (Section 2.2 of
      RFC6431 [RFC6431]).  If this algorithm is used, the Service
      Provider needs to retain the keying material and specific
      cryptographic function to support reversibility.

      5: Vendor-specific.  Other vendor-specific algorithms may also be
      supported.

   The assigned range of ports MAY also be used when translating ICMP
   requests (when re-writing the Identifier field).

   The CGN then reserves ports as follows:

   1.  The CGN removes reserved ports (R) from the port candidate list
       (e.g., 0-1023 for TCP and UDP).  At a minimum, the CGN SHOULD
       remove system ports (RFC6335) [RFC6335] from the port candidate
       list reserved for deterministic assignment.



Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   2.  The CGN calculates the total compression ratio (C+D), and
       allocates 1/(C+D) of the available ports to each internal IP
       address.  Specific port allocation is determined by the algorithm
       (A) configured on the CGN.  Any remaining ports are allocated to
       the dynamic pool.

       Note: Setting D to 0 disables the dynamic pool.  This option
       eliminates the need for per-subscriber logging at the expense of
       limiting the number of concurrent connections that 'power users'
       can initiate.

   3.  When a subscriber initiates a connection, the CGN creates a
       translation mapping between the subscriber's inside local IP
       address/port and the CGN outside global IP address/port.  The CGN
       MUST use one of the ports allocated in step 2 for the translation
       as long as such ports are available.  The CGN SHOULD allocate
       ports randomly within the port range assigned by the
       deterministic algorithm.  This is to increase subscriber privacy.
       The CGN MUST use the preallocated port range from step 2 for Port
       Control Protocol (PCP, [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]) reservations as long
       as such ports are available.  While the CGN maintains its mapping
       table, it need not generate a log entry for translation mappings
       created in this step.

   4.  If D>0, the CGN will have a pool of ports left for dynamic
       assignment.  If a subscriber uses more than the range of ports
       allocated in step 2 (but fewer than the configured maximum ports
       M), the CGN assigns a block of ports from the dynamic assignment
       range for such a connection or for PCP reservations.  The CGN
       MUST log dynamically assigned port blocks to facilitate
       subscriber-to-address mapping.  The CGN SHOULD manage dynamic
       ports as described in [I-D.tsou-behave-natx4-log-reduction].

   5.  Configuration of reserved ports (e.g., system ports) is left to
       operator configuration.

   Thus, the CGN will maintain translation mapping information for all
   connections within its internal translation tables; however, it only
   needs to externally log translations for dynamically-assigned ports.

2.1.  IPv4 Port Utilization Efficiency

   For Service Providers requiring an aggressive address sharing ratio,
   the use of the algorithmic mapping may impact the efficiency of the
   address sharing.  A dynamic port range allocation assignment is more
   suitable in those cases.





Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


2.2.  Planning & Dimensioning

   Unlike dynamic approaches, the use of the algorithmic mapping
   requires more effort from operational teams to tweak the algorithm
   (e.g., size of the port range, address sharing ratio, etc.).
   Dedicated alarms SHOULD be configured when some port utilization
   thresholds are fired so that the configuration can be refined.

   The use of algorithmic mapping also affects geolocation.  Changes to
   the inside and outside address ranges (e.g. due to growth, address
   allocation planning, etc.) would require external geolocation
   providers to recalibrate their mappings.

2.3.  Deterministic CGN Example

   To illustrate the use of deterministic NAT, let's consider a simple
   example.  The operator configures an inside address range (I) of
   100.64.0.0/28 [RFC6598] and outside address (O) of 203.0.113.1.  The
   dynamic address pool factor (D) is set to '2'.  Thus, the total
   compression ratio is 1:(14+2) = 1:16.  Only the system ports (e.g.
   ports < 1024) are reserved (R) . This configuration causes the CGN to
   preallocate ((65536-1024)/16 =) 4032 TCP and 4032 UDP ports per
   inside IPv4 address.  For the purposes of this example, let's assume
   that they are allocated sequentially, where 100.64.0.1 maps to
   203.0.113.1 ports 1024-5055, 100.64.0.2 maps to 203.0.113.1 ports
   5056-9087, etc.  The dynamic port range thus contains ports
   57472-65535 (port allocation illustrated in the table below).
   Finally, the maximum ports/subscriber is set to 5040.























Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


            +-----------------------+-------------------------+
            | Inside Address / Pool | Outside Address & Port  |
            +-----------------------+-------------------------+
            | Reserved              | 203.0.113.1:0-1023      |
            | 100.64.0.1            | 203.0.113.1:1024-5055   |
            | 100.64.0.2            | 203.0.113.1:5056-9087   |
            | 100.64.0.3            | 203.0.113.1:9088-13119  |
            | 100.64.0.4            | 203.0.113.1:13120-17151 |
            | 100.64.0.5            | 203.0.113.1:17152-21183 |
            | 100.64.0.6            | 203.0.113.1:21184-25215 |
            | 100.64.0.7            | 203.0.113.1:25216-29247 |
            | 100.64.0.8            | 203.0.113.1:29248-33279 |
            | 100.64.0.9            | 203.0.113.1:33280-37311 |
            | 100.64.0.10           | 203.0.113.1:37312-41343 |
            | 100.64.0.11           | 203.0.113.1:41344-45375 |
            | 100.64.0.12           | 203.0.113.1:45376-49407 |
            | 100.64.0.13           | 203.0.113.1:49408-53439 |
            | 100.64.0.14           | 203.0.113.1:53440-57471 |
            | Dynamic               | 203.0.113.1:57472-65535 |
            +-----------------------+-------------------------+

   When subscriber 1 using 100.64.0.1 initiates a low volume of
   connections (e.g. < 4032 concurrent connections), the CGN maps the
   outgoing source address/port to the preallocated range.  These
   translation mappings are not logged.

   Subscriber 2 concurrently uses more than the allocated 4032 ports
   (e.g. for peer-to-peer, mapping, video streaming, or other
   connection-intensive traffic types), the CGN allocates up to an
   additional 1008 ports using bulk port reservations.  In this example,
   subscriber 2 uses outside ports 5056-9087, and then 100-port blocks
   between 58000-58999.  Connections using ports 5056-9087 are not
   logged, while 10 log entries are created for ports 58000-58099,
   58100-58199, 58200-58299, ..., 58900-58999.

   In order to identify a subscriber behind a CGN (regardless of port
   allocation method), public safety agencies need to collect source
   address and port information from content provider log files.  Thus,
   content providers are advised to log source address, source port, and
   timestamp for all log entries, per [RFC6302].  If a public safety
   agency collects such information from a content provider and reports
   abuse from 203.0.113.1, port 2001, the operator can reverse the
   mapping algorithm to determine that the internal IP address
   subscriber 1 has been assigned generated the traffic without
   consulting CGN logs (by correlating the internal IP address with DHCP
   /PPP lease connection records).  If a second abuse report comes in
   for 203.0.113.1, port 58204, the operator will determine that port
   58204 is within the dynamic pool range, consult the log file,



Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   correlate with connection records, and determine that subscriber 2
   generated the traffic (assuming that the public safety timestamp
   matches the operator timestamp.  As noted in RFC6292 [RFC6292],
   accurate time-keeping (e.g., use of NTP or Simple NTP) is vital).

   In this example, there are no log entries for the majority of
   subscribers, who only use pre-allocated ports.  Only minimal logging
   would be needed for those few subscribers who exceed their pre-
   allocated ports and obtain extra bulk port assignments from the
   dynamic pool.  Logging data for those users will include inside
   address, outside address, outside port range, and timestamp.

3.  Additional Logging Considerations

   In order to be able to identify a subscriber based on observed
   external IPv4 address, port, and timestamp, an operator needs to know
   how the CGN was configured with regards to internal and external IP
   addresses, dynamic address pool factor, maximum ports per user, and
   reserved port range at any given time.  Therefore, the CGN MUST
   generate a record any time such variables are changed.  The CGN
   SHOULD generate a log message any time such variables are changed.
   The CGN MAY keep such a record in the form of a router configuration
   file.  If the CGN does not generate a log message, it would be up to
   the operator to maintain version control of router config changes.
   Also, the CGN SHOULD generate such a log message once per day to
   facilitate quick identification of the relevant configuration in the
   event of an abuse notification.

   Such a log message MUST, at minimum, include the timestamp, inside
   prefix I, inside mask, outside prefix O, outside mask, D, M, A, and
   reserved port list R; for example:

   [Wed Oct 11 14:32:52
   2000]:100.64.0.0:28:203.0.113.0:32:2:5040:0:1-1023,5004,5060.

3.1.  Failover Considerations

   Due to the deterministic nature of algorithmically-assigned
   translations, no additional logging is required during failover
   conditions provided that inside address ranges are unique within a
   given failover domain.  Even when directed to a different CGN server,
   translations within the deterministic port range on either the
   primary or secondary server can be algorithmically reversed, provided
   the algorithm is known.  Thus, if 100.64.0.1 port 3456 maps to
   203.0.113.1 port 1000 on CGN 1 and 198.51.100.1 port 1000 on Failover
   CGN 2, an operator can identify the subscriber based on outside
   source address and port information.




Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   Similarly, assignments made from the dynamic overflow pool need to be
   logged as described above, whether translations are performed on the
   primary or failover CGN.

4.  Impact on the IPv6 Transition

   The solution described in this document is applicable to Carrier
   Grade NAT transition technologies (e.g. NAT444, DS-Lite, and NAT64).
   As discussed in [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts], the authors acknowledge
   that native IPv6 will offer subscribers a better experience than CGN.
   However, many CPE devices only support IPv4.  Likewise, as of July
   2012, only approximately 4% of the top 1 million websites were
   available using IPv6.  Accordingly, deterministic CGN should in no
   way be understood as making CGN a replacement for IPv6 service.  The
   authors encourage device manufacturers to consider [RFC6540] and
   include IPv6 support.  In the interim, however, CGN has already been
   deployed in some operator networks.  Deterministic CGN will provide
   operators with the ability to quickly respond to public safety
   requests without requiring excessive infrastructure, operations, and
   bandwidth to support per-connection logging.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations applicable to NAT operation for various
   protocols as documented in, for example, RFC 4787 [RFC4787] and RFC
   5382 [RFC5382] also apply to this document.

   Note that with the possible exception of cryptographically-based port
   allocations, attackers could reverse-engineer algorithmically-derived
   port allocations to either target a specific subscriber or to spoof
   traffic to make it appear to have been generated by a specific
   subscriber.  However, this is exactly the same level of security that
   the subscriber would experience in the absence of CGN.  CGN is not
   intended to provide additional security by obscurity.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the following people for their
   suggestions and feedback: Bobby Flaim, Lee Howard, Wes George, Jean-
   Francois Tremblay, Mohammed Boucadair, Alain Durand, David Miles,
   Andy Anchev, Victor Kuarsingh, Miguel Cros Cecilia, and Reinaldo
   Penno.





Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

   [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.

   [RFC6264]  Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental
              Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264,
              June 2011.

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

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
              Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and U.
              Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on
              Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-04
              (work in progress), May 2012.

   [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.miles-behave-l2nat]
              Miles, D. and M. Townsley, "Layer2-Aware NAT", draft-
              miles-behave-l2nat-00 (work in progress), March 2009.

   [I-D.shirasaki-nat444]
              Yamagata, I., Shirasaki, Y., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
              and H. Ashida, "NAT444", draft-shirasaki-nat444-06 (work
              in progress), July 2012.







Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


   [I-D.sivakumar-behave-nat-logging]
              Sivakumar, S. and R. Penno, "IPFIX Information Elements
              for logging NAT Events", draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-
              logging-05 (work in progress), July 2012.

   [I-D.tsou-behave-natx4-log-reduction]
              ZOU), T., Li, W., and T. Taylor, "Port Management To
              Reduce Logging In Large-Scale NATs", draft-tsou-behave-
              natx4-log-reduction-02 (work in progress), September 2010.

   [RFC6056]  Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
              Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056, January
              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.

   [RFC6292]  Hoffman, P., "Requirements for a Working Group Charter
              Tool", RFC 6292, June 2011.

   [RFC6302]  Durand, A., Gashinsky, I., Lee, D., and S. Sheppard,
              "Logging Recommendations for Internet-Facing Servers", BCP
              162, RFC 6302, June 2011.

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

   [RFC6335]  Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
              Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
              Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
              Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, RFC
              6335, August 2011.

   [RFC6431]  Boucadair, M., Levis, P., Bajko, G., Savolainen, T., and
              T. Tsou, "Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP
              IP Control Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 6431, November 2011.

   [RFC6540]  George, W., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and L. Howard,
              "IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes", BCP 177,
              RFC 6540, April 2012.

   [RFC6598]  Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and
              M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address
              Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, April 2012.





Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              deterministic-cgn               January 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Chris Donley
   CableLabs
   858 Coal Creek Cir
   Louisville, CO  80027
   US

   Email: c.donley@cablelabs.com


   Chris Grundemann
   Internet Society
   Denver, CO
   US

   Email: cgrundemann@gmail.com


   Vikas Sarawat
   CableLabs
   858 Coal Creek Cir
   Louisville, CO  80027
   US

   Email: v.sarawat@cablelabs.com


   Karthik Sundaresan
   CableLabs
   858 Coal Creek Cir
   Louisville, CO  80027
   US

   Email: k.sundaresan@cablelabs.com


   Olivier Vautrin
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: olivier@juniper.net







Donley, et al.            Expires July 17, 2014                [Page 14]


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