[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 5902

Network Working Group                                          D. Thaler
Internet-Draft                                                 Microsoft
Intended status: Informational                                  L. Zhang
Expires: September 5, 2009                                          UCLA
                                                           March 4, 2009

            IAB Thoughts on IPv6 Network Address Translation

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.


   There has been much recent discussion on the topic of whether the
   IETF should develop standards for IPv6 Network Address Translators

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

   (NATs).  This document articulates the architectural issues raised by
   IPv6 NATs, the pros and cons of having IPv6 NATs, and provides the
   IAB's thoughts on the current open issues and the solution space.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  What is the Problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Avoiding Renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Site Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Topology Hiding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Preventing Host Counting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.5.  Simple Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.6.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Architectural Considerations of IPv6 NAT . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Solution Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

1.  Introduction

   In the past, the IAB has published a number of documents relating to
   Internet transparency and the end-to-end principle, and other IETF
   documents have also touched on these issues as well.  These documents
   articulate the general principles on which the Internet architecture
   is based, as well as the core values that the Internet community
   seeks to protect going forward.  Most recently, RFC 4924 [RFC4924]
   reaffirms these principles and provides a review of the various
   documents in this area.

   Facing imminent IPv4 address space exhaustion, recently there have
   been increased efforts in IPv6 deployment.  However, since late last
   year there have also been increased discussions about whether the
   IETF should standardize network address translation within IPv6.
   People who are against standardizing IPv6 NAT argue that there is no
   fundamental need for IPv6 NAT, and that as IPv6 continues to roll
   out, the Internet should converge towards reinstallation of the end-
   to-end reachability which has been a key factor in the Internet's
   success.  On the other hand, people who are for IPv6 NAT believe that
   NAT vendors would provide IPv6 NAT implementations anyway as NAT can
   be a solution to a number of problems, and that the IETF should avoid
   repeating the same mistake with IPv4 NAT, where the lack of protocol
   standards led to different IPv4 implementations, making NAT traversal

   An earlier effort, [RFC4864], provides a discussion of the real or
   perceived benefits of NAT and suggests alternatives for most of them,
   with the intent of showing that NAT is not required to get the
   desired benefits.  However, it also identifies several gaps remaining
   to be filled.

   This document provides the IAB's current thoughts on this debate.  We
   believe that the issue in hand must be viewed from the overall
   architecture standpoint in order to fully assess the pros and cons of
   IPv6 NAT on the global Internet and its future development.

2.  What is the Problem?

   The discussions on the necessity for IPv6 NAT can be summarized as
   follows: network address translation is viewed as a solution to
   achieve a number of desired properties for individual networks:
   avoiding renumbering, facilitating multihoming, internal topology
   hiding, and in particular preventing host counting.  We discuss below
   each of these perceived benefits from NAT.

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

2.1.  Avoiding Renumbering

   As discussed in [RFC4864] Section 2.5, the ability to change
   providers with minimal operational difficulty is an important
   requirement in many networks.  However, renumbering is still quite
   painful today, as discussed in [I-D.carpenter-renum-needs-work].
   Currently it requires reconfiguring devices that deal with IP
   addresses or prefixes, including DNS servers, DHCP servers,
   firewalls, IPsec policies, and potentially many other systems such as
   intrusion detection systems, inventory management systems, patch
   management systems, etc.

   In practice today, renumbering does not seem to be a significant
   problem in consumer networks, such as home networks, where addresses
   or prefixes are typically obtained through DHCP, and are rarely
   manually configured in any component.  However in managed networks,
   renumbering can be a serious problem.

   We also note that many, if not most, large enterprise networks avoid
   the renumbering problem by using provider-independent (PI) IP address
   blocks.  The use of PI addresses is inherent in today's Internet
   operations.  However in smaller managed networks that cannot get
   provider-independent IP address blocks, renumbering remains a serious
   issue.  Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) constantly receive
   requests for PI address blocks; one main reason that they hesitate in
   assigning PI address blocks to all users is the concern about the PI
   addresses' impact on the routing system scalability.

2.2.  Site Multihoming

   Another important requirement in many networks is site multihoming.
   A multihomed site essentially requires that its prefixes be present
   in the global routing table to achieve the desired reliability in its
   Internet connectivity as well as load balancing.  In today's
   practice, multihomed sites with PI addresses announce their PI
   prefixes to the global routing system; multihomed sites with
   provider-allocated (PA) addresses also announce the PA prefix they
   obtained from one provider to the global routing system through
   another provider, effectively disabling provider-based prefix
   aggregation.  This practice makes the global routing table scale
   linearly with the number of multihomed user networks.

   This issue was identified in [RFC4864] Section 6.4.  Unfortunately,
   no solution except NAT has been deployed today that can insulate the
   global routing system from the growing number of multihomed sites,
   where a multihomed site simply assigns multiple IPv4 addresses, one
   from each of its providers, to its exit router which is a IPv4 NAT
   box.  Using address translation to facilitate multihoming support has

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

   one unique advantage: there is no impact on the routing system
   scalability, as the NAT box simply takes one address from each
   provider, and the multihomed site does not inject its own routes into
   the system.  Intuitively it also seems straightforward to roll the
   same solution into multihoming support in the IPv6 deployment.

   However it is important to point out that a multihomed site
   announcing its own PI prefix(es) achieves important benefits that
   NAT-based multihoming support does not provide.  Using PI addresses,
   end-to-end communications can be preserved in face of connectivity
   failures of individual providers, as long as the site remains
   connected through at least one operational provider.  Announcing PI
   prefixes also gives a multihomed site the ability to perform traffic
   engineering and load balancing.  While the users gain these benefits
   from PI-based multihoming, we also note that, in today's routing
   system, these gains are at the cost of the increased routing table
   size for all providers.

2.3.  Topology Hiding

   It is perceived that a network operator may want to hide the details
   of the network topology, the size of the network, the identities of
   the internal routers, and the interconnection among the routers.
   This desire has been discussed in [RFC4864] Sections 4.4 and 6.2.

   However it remains an open question of whether one can successfully
   hide the network topology through address translation.  Even if one
   can hide the actual addresses of internal hosts through address
   translation, this does not necessarily prove sufficient to hide
   internal topology.  It may be possible to infer some aspects of
   topological information from passively observing packets, for example
   based on packet timing, the Hop Limit field, or other fields in the
   packet header.  An even bigger open question is what quantifiable
   benefits topology hiding can bring, which will determine how much
   cost one is willing to pay to achieve it.

2.4.  Preventing Host Counting

   As a specific measure of topology hiding, preventing an external
   entity from counting the number of hosts on one's network is another
   perceived benefit of NAT.  Like topology hiding in general, it
   remains to be seen how important this issue may really be in

   Even where host counting is a concern, it is worth pointing out some
   of the challenges in preventing it.  In [Bellovin], Bellovin showed
   how one can successfully count the number of hosts behind a NAT box.
   Although that paper uses the IPid field to count IPv4 hosts, the

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

   point applies more generally, in that if any fields, such as fragment
   ID, TCP initial sequence number, or ephemeral port number, are chosen
   in a predictive fashion (e.g., sequentially), then an attacker may
   correlate packets or connections coming from the same host.

2.5.  Simple Security

   It is commonly perceived that a NAT box provides one level of
   protection because external hosts cannot directly initiate
   communication with hosts behind a NAT.  As discussed in [RFC4864]
   Section 2.2, the act of translation does not provide security in
   itself, but rather the lack of pre-established or permanent filtering
   state.  The stateful filtering function can provide the same level of
   protection without requiring a translation function.  For further
   discussion, see [RFC4864] Section 4.2.

2.6.  Discussion

   At present, the primary benefits one may receive from deploying NAT
   appear to be avoiding renumbering and supporting multihoming without
   impacting routing scalability.  Topology hiding and host counting may
   be concerns to some, however solving them calls for further research
   as address translation may or may not be an effective solution.
   Furthermore, their quantifiable benefit is yet to be understood, and
   one must compare that benefit against the potential costs.

3.  Architectural Considerations of IPv6 NAT

   The discussions on IPv6 NAT often refer to the wide deployment of
   IPv4 NAT, where people have both identified tangible benefits and
   gained operational experience.  However the discussions so far seem
   mostly focused on the potential benefits that IPv6 NAT may, or may
   not, bring.  Little attention has been paid to the bigger picture, as
   we elaborate below.

   When considering the benefits that IPv6 NAT may bring to a site that
   deploys it, we must not overlook a bigger question: if one site
   deploys IPv6 NAT, what is the potential impact it brings to the rest
   of the Internet that does not do IPv6 NAT?  This important question
   does not seem to have been addressed, or addressed adequately.

   We believe that the discussions on IPv6 NAT should be put in the
   context of the overall Internet architecture.  The foremost question
   is not how many benefits one may derive from using IPv6 NAT, but more
   fundamentally, whether a significant portion of parties on the
   Internet are willing to deploy IPv6 NAT, and hence whether we want to
   make IP address translation a permanent block in the Internet

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009


   One may argue that the answers to the above questions depend on
   whether we can find adequate solutions to the renumbering and
   multihoming problems.  It is worthwhile pointing out that IPv6 NAT is
   not the only solution to these two problems.  Renumbering can be
   avoided by allocating to users provider-independent addresses.
   Multihoming is already a pervasive practice today, not some new
   feature to be supported in the future, and NAT-based multihoming has
   serious limitations as discussed earlier.  The real issue is not
   multihoming per se, but the need for a scalable routing system.

   If the answer to the above two questions is no, then non-IPv6-NAT
   parts of the world should *not* be affected by those sites that want
   to deploy IPv6 NAT.  More specifically, IPv6 users should be able to
   reach each other directly, without having to worry about address
   translation boxes between the two ends.  IPv6 application developers
   in general should be able to program based on the assumption of end-
   to-end reachability, without having to address the issue of
   traversing NAT boxes.  Similarly, network operators should be able to
   run their networks without the added complexity of NATs, which can
   bring not only the cost of additional boxes, but also increased
   difficulties in network monitoring and problem debugging.

   Given the diversity of the Internet user populations and the
   diversity in today's operational practice, it is conceivable that
   some parties may have a strong desire to deploy IPv6 NAT, and the
   Internet should accommodate different views that lead to different
   practices (i.e., some using IPv6 NAT, others not).

   If we accept the view that some, but not all, parties want IPv6 NAT,
   then the real debate should not be on what benefits IPv6 NAT may
   bring.  As every coin has two sides, it is undeniable that network
   address translation can bring certain benefits to its users.  However
   the real challenge we should address is how to design IPv6 NAT in
   such a way that it can hide its impact within some localized scope.
   If IPv6 NAT design can achieve this goal, then the Internet as a
   whole can strive for (re-installing) the end-to-end reachability

4.  Solution Space

   From an end-to-end perspective, the solution space for renumbering
   and multihoming can be broadly divided into three classes:

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

   1.  Endpoints get a stable, globally reachable address: In this class
       of solution, end sites use provider-independent addressing and
       hence endpoints are unaffected by changing ISPs.  For this to be
       a complete solution, provider-independent addressing must be
       available to all managed networks (i.e., all networks that use
       manual configuration of addresses or prefixes in any type of
       system).  However in today's practice, assigning provider-
       independent addresses to all networks, including small ones,
       raises concerns with the scalability of the global routing
       system.  This is an area of ongoing research and experimentation.
       In practice, operators have also been developing short-term
       approaches to resolve today's gap between the continued routing
       table growth and limitations in existing router capacity [NANOG].
   2.  Endpoints get a stable but non-globally-routable address on
       physical interfaces but a dynamic, globally routable address
       inside a tunnel: In this class of solution, hosts use locally-
       scoped (and hence provider-independent) addresses for
       communication within the site.  As a result, managed systems such
       as routers, DHCP servers, etc. all see stable addresses.
       Tunneling from the host to some infrastructure device is then
       used to provide the host with globally routable addresses which
       may change, but address changes are constrained to systems that
       operate over or beyond the tunnel, including DNS servers and
       applications.  These systems, however, are the ones that often
       can already deal with changes today using mechanisms such as DNS
       dynamic update.  However, if endpoints and the tunnel
       infrastructure devices are owned by different organizations, then
       solutions are harder to incrementally deploy due to the incentive
       and coordination issues involved.
   3.  Endpoints get a stable address which gets translated in the
       network: In this class of solution, end sites use non-globally-
       routable addresses within the site, and translate them to
       globally routable addresses somewhere in the network.  In
       general, this causes the loss of end-to-end transparency which is
       the subject of [RFC4924] and the documents it surveys.  If the
       translation is reversible, and the translation is indeed reversed
       by the time it reaches the other end of communication, then end-
       to-end transparency can be provided.  However if the two
       translators involved are owned by different organizations, then
       solutions are harder to incrementally deploy due to the incentive
       and coordination issues involved.

   Concerning routing scalability, although there is no immediate
   danger, routing scalability has been a long time concern in
   operational communities, and an effective and deployable solution
   must be found.  We observe that the question in hand is not about
   whether some parties can run NAT, but rather, whether the Internet as
   a whole would be willing to rely on NAT to curtail the routing

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

   scalability problem, and whether we have investigated all the
   potential impacts of doing so to understand its cost on the overall
   architecture.  If effective solutions can be deployed in time to
   allow assigning provider-independent IPv6 addresses to all user
   communities, the Internet can avoid the complexity and fragility and
   other unforeseen problems introduced by NAT.

4.1.  Discussion

   As [RFC4924] states:
      A network that does not filter or transform the data that it
      carries may be said to be "transparent" or "oblivious" to the
      content of packets.  Networks that provide oblivious transport
      enable the deployment of new services without requiring changes to
      the core.  It is this flexibility that is perhaps both the
      Internet's most essential characteristic as well as one of the
      most important contributors to its success.

   We believe that providing end-to-end transparency, as defined above,
   is key to the success of the Internet.  While some fields of traffic
   (e.g., Hop Limit) are defined to be mutable, transparency requires
   that fields not defined as such arrive un-transformed.  Currently,
   the source and destination addresses are defined as immutable fields,
   and are used as such by many protocols and applications.

   Each of the three classes of solution can be defined in a way that
   preserves end-to-end transparency.  We strongly encourage the
   community to consider end-to-end transparency as a requirement when
   proposing any solution.  Solutions can then be compared based on
   other aspects such as scalability and ease of deployment.

5.  Security Considerations

   Section 2 discusses potential privacy concerns as part of the Host
   Counting and Topology Hiding problems.

6.  IANA Considerations

   [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]

   This document has no IANA Actions.

7.  References

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

7.1.  Normative References

7.2.  Informative References

              Bellovin, S., "A Technique for Counting NATted Hosts",
              Proc. Second Internet Measurement Workshop ,
              November 2002,

              Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, "Renumbering
              still needs work", draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-02
              (work in progress), February 2009.

   [NANOG]    "Extending the Life of Layer 3 Switches in a 256k+ Route
              World", NANOG 44 , October 2008, <http://www.nanog.org/

   [RFC3041]  Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for
              Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041,
              January 2001.

   [RFC4864]  Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and
              E. Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864,
              May 2007.

   [RFC4924]  Aboba, B. and E. Davies, "Reflections on Internet
              Transparency", RFC 4924, July 2007.

Authors' Addresses

   Dave Thaler
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052

   Phone: +1 425 703 8835
   Email: dthaler@microsoft.com

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           IPv6 NAT Considerations              March 2009

   Lixia Zhang
   UCLA Computer Science Department
   3713 Boelter Hall
   Los Angeles, CA  90095

   Phone: +1 310 825 2695
   Email: lixia@cs.ucla.edu

Thaler & Zhang          Expires September 5, 2009              [Page 11]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.120, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/