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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Network working group                                             X. Xu
Internet Draft                                                   Huawei
Category: BCP                                              M. Boucadair
Expires: September 2010                                  France Telecom
                                                                 Y. Lee
                                                                Comcast
                                                                G. Chen
                                                           China Mobile
                                                          March 5, 2010

    Redundancy and Load Balancing Framework for Stateful Network Address
                             Translators (NAT)

                  draft-xu-behave-stateful-nat-standby-02


Abstract

   This document defines a framework for ensuring redundancy and/or
   load balancing for stateful Network Address Translators (NAT),
   including NAT44, NAT46 and NAT64.

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-
   Drafts.

   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
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.



Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

   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.

Conventions used in this document

   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].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction.............................................. 3
   2. Terminology .............................................. 3
   3. Reference Architecture ................................... 5
   4. Redundancy Mechanisms..................................... 6
      4.1. Cold Standby Mechanism............................... 7
      4.2. Hot Standby Mechanism................................ 9
   5. Load Balancing Mechanisms................................ 10
   6. Election Protocol Considerations......................... 11
   7. State Synchronization Protocol Considerations ........... 12
   8. Security Considerations.................................. 12
   9. IANA Considerations...................................... 12
   10. Acknowledgments......................................... 12
   11. References ............................................. 12
      11.1. Normative References............................... 12
      11.2. Informative References ............................ 13
   Authors' Addresses.......................................... 14

















Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT


1. Introduction

   Network Address Translation (NAT) has been used as an efficient way
   to share the same IPv4 address among several hosts. Recently, due to
   IPv4 address shortage, several proposals have been elaborated to
   rely on Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) (e.g., [NAT444], [DS-Lite] and
   [NAT64]) as means to optimize the address multiplicative factor
   [Shortage]. In such models, CGN function (which may be embedded in a
   router or be deployed in standalone devices) is deployed within
   large-scale networks, such as ISP networks or enterprise ones, where
   a large number of customers are located. These customers within a
   network which is served by a single CGN device may experience
   service degradation due to the presence of the single point of
   failure. Therefore, redundancy and/or load-balancing capabilities of
   the CGN devices are strongly desired in order to deliver highly
   available services to customers. Failure detection and repair time
   must be therefore shortened.

   This document describes a framework of redundancy and/or load
   balancing for stateful NAT including: NAT46, NAT64 and NAT44.

   Unless otherwise mentioned, NAT and CGN terms throughout this
   document, pertain to stateful NAT and stateful CGN. Stateless NAT is
   out of the scope of this memo. Except dealing with the exceptional
   failures (e.g., power outage, OS crash-down or link failure, etc.),
   the redundancy mechanism described in this document can also be used
   for planned maintenance operations (i.e., graceful shutdown of the
   Primary NAT due to maintenance needs).

   1.1 Purpose

   The main purpose of this memo is analyzing means to ensure high
   availability and load balancing in environments where carrier grade
   NAT44, NAT64 and NAT46 are deployed. Some engineering
   recommendations are provided for the selection of the IPv6 prefix to
   build IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses [Format] and the routing
   configuration.

2. Terminology

   This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC2663]. Below are
   provided terms specific to this document:

        - CGN (Carrier Grade NAT):




Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

        a NAT device placed within a large-scale network (e.g., ISP
        network, enterprise network, or campus network). These devices
        may be placed at the boundary between the large-scale private
        network and the public Internet, between a private network and
        a large-scale public network or between two heterogeneous (i.e.,
        IPv4 and IPv6) IP realms.

        - Prefix64:

        an IPv6 prefix used for synthesizing IPv6 addresses for the
        IPv4 hosts. See [Format] for more details.

        - CGN internal address realm (internal realm for short):

        a realm where the communication initiators (e.g., a client in
        the context of client/server application) are located. For
        NAT44, the internal realm refers to the private networks, as
        opposed to the IPv4 Internet. For NAT64, the internal realm
        means IPv6 network or IPv6 Internet. For NAT46, the internal
        realm refers to IPv4 network or IPv4 Internet. Accordingly, the
        hosts located in the internal realm are called internal hosts,
        and the addresses used in the internal realm are called
        internal addresses. In the context of DS-Lite architecture, the
        internal address realm is assumed to be private IPv4 addresses
        even if the transport mode used to convey exchanged traffic is
        IPv6. A DS-Lite CGN device (a.k.a., Address Family Transition
        Router element (AFTR)) is a special NAT44 device which allows
        overlapping IPv4 private addresses and requires IPv6
        capabilities and IPv6-specific information to perform its NAT
        operation. Details can be found in [DS-Lite].

        - CGN external address realm (external realm for short):

        a realm where the communication responders (e.g., a server in
        the client/server application) are located. For NAT44, the
        external realm refers to the IPv4 Internet. For NAT64, the
        external realm means the IPv4 Internet or IPv4 network. For
        NAT46, the external realm refers to the IPv6 Internet or IPv6
        network. Accordingly, the hosts located in the external realm
        are called external hosts, and the addresses used in the
        external realm are called external addresses.

        - Internal address pool:

        an address pool used for assigning internal addresses to
        represent the external hosts in the internal realm. Note that



Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

        this address pool is specific to NAT46 and NAT64. For NAT46,
        the CGN will allocate one internal address (which is an IPv4
        address) from the pool to an external IPv6 host and map the
        external IPv6 host's IPv6 address to this IPv4 address. For
        NAT64, the CGN internal address pool is the Prefix64 [Format].
        This Prefix64 is used for synthesizing internal IPv6 addresses
        to represent external IPv4 hosts in the internal realm.

        - External address pool:

        an address pool used by the CGN for assigning external
        addresses to the internal hosts. For NAT44 and NAT64, the
        external address pool contains a set of public IPv4 addresses.
        For NAT46, the external IPv6 address pool is the Prefix64. The
        Prefix64 is used by the CGN for synthesizing the external IPv6
        addresses to represent internal IPv4 hosts in the external
        realm.

        - CPE (Customer Premises Equipment):

        a device which is used to interconnect the customer premise
        with the service provider's network.

3. Reference Architecture

   In a typical operational scenario, as illustrated in Figure 1, two
   NAT devices are deployed for redundancy and/or load balancing
   purposes. Hence, we describe the corresponding mechanisms based on
   this scenario. Note that these mechanisms are also suitable in the
   scenarios in which more than two NAT devices are used.

        +-------------------------+     +-----------------------+
        |                         |     |                       |
        |                       +-+-----+-+                     |
        |                       |  NAT-A  |                     |
   +----+-------------+         +-+-----+-+    +-------------+  |
   |   Internal Host  |           |     |      |External Host|  |
   +----+-------------+           |     |      +-------------+  |
        |                       +-+-----+-+                     |
        |                       |  NAT-B  |                     |
        |    Internal realm     +-+-----+-+    External realm   |
        |                         |     |                       |
        +-------------------------+     +-----------------------+

              Figure 1. General Scenario of Dual NAT Routers




Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

   The redundancy and load-balancing mechanisms for NAT44, NAT46 and
   NAT64 are almost identical. In all cases, the NAT device or the
   immediate router of the NAT device announces the reachability of the
   NAT device to the external realm. The slight difference is the NAT
   reachability information. For example, NAT64 announces an IPv6 route
   for the Prefix64; NAT44 announces an IPv4 default route; DS-Lite
   AFTR announces an IPv6 route pointing to itself; and NAT46 announces
   a route for its internal address pool. This difference does not
   affect the general redundancy and load-balancing mechanisms, so the
   mechanisms described in this memo can be applied to all the NAT
   devices.

4. Redundancy Mechanisms

   The fundamental principle of NAT redundancy is to make two or more
   NAT devices function as a redundancy group, and select one as the
   Primary NAT and the other(s) as the Backup NAT through a dedicated
   election procedure (see Section 6) or manual configuration. In the
   nominal regime, datagrams exchanged between hosts in the internal
   realm and those in the external realm are handled by the Primary NAT.
   Once the Primary NAT is out of service (means to detect and to
   notify this failure to the redundancy group should be activated),
   the Backup NAT with the highest priority (if several Backup NAT
   devices are deployed) takes over and provides the NAT services to
   the internal hosts. This Backup NAT is then identified as new
   Primary NAT. Once the former Primary NAT became operational, it
   could either preempt the role of Primary NAT or stay as a candidate
   in the redundancy group. This is part of administrative policies and
   out of scope of this memo.

   To ensure a coherent behavior when NAT device fails, this document
   assumes that both Primary and Backup NAT devices are managed by the
   same administrative domain. Thus, consistent configuration policies
   should be enforced in all devices. Note that the election process
   must be deterministic and does not lead to fuzzy situation where two
   or more NAT devices will become Primary NAT. Moreover, the failover
   must be quick to ensure service continuity.

   Two redundancy mechanisms are described hereafter: the cold or the
   hot standby mechanism:

        The Cold Standby Mechanism is just to keep the NAT failover
        transparent to the internal hosts. The NAT states are not
        replicated from the Primary NAT to the Backup NAT. When the
        Primary NAT fails, all the existing established sessions will




Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

        be flushed out. The internal hosts are required to re-establish
        sessions to the external hosts;

        Hot Standby Mechanism is to maintain the established sessions
        while failover happens. NAT states are replicated from the
        Primary NAT to the Backup NAT. When the Primary NAT fails, the
        Backup NAT will take over all the existing established sessions.
        The internal hosts are not required to re-establish sessions to
        the external hosts.

   The following sub-sections provide more information about these two
   modes.

4.1. Cold Standby Mechanism

   4.1.1 Internal Realm

   For Cold Standby Mechanism, the internal addresses used to represent
   the external hosts in the internal realm should be retained after
   the NAT failover. The following assesses how this requirement is met
   in each NAT flavor:

        For NAT44 and DS-Lite, the external hosts' internal addresses
        (i.e., the addresses used to represent the external hosts in
        the internal realm) are unchanged (i.e., not NAT-ed). Therefore,
        the above requirement is met without additional work.

        For a NAT64, NAT devices belonging to a redundancy group
        should be configured with an identical Prefix64.

        For NAT46, NAT devices in a redundancy group should be
        configured with an identical IPv4 address pool. A subset of
        translation state information should be synchronized among
        these NAT devices through a dedicated state synchronization
        protocol [NAT-Sync]. This translation state ensures that the
        Backup NAT, once taking over as a Primary NAT, will assign the
        same IPv4 addresses to the external IPv6 hosts for the internal
        IPv4 hosts.

   4.1.2 External Realm

   Each NAT device in a NAT redundancy group is configured with a
   different external address pool. A route to that external pool is
   then announced into the external realm by the NAT device or the NAT
   immediate router.




Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

        For NAT44, NAT64 and DS-Lite: NAT devices are configured with
        different external IPv4 address pools. These addresses are not
        overlapped. Otherwise, when the Primary NAT fails and the
        Backup NAT takes over the Primary NAT, a NAT collision may
        happen. For example, let consider a Primary NAT NAT-ed internal
        host Host-A to IPv4-A. IPv4-A is an address belonging to the
        external address pool. If the Backup NAT (i.e., the newly
        elected Primary NAT) was configured with the same pool, the
        Backup NAT may assign the same IPv4-A to another internal host
        Host-B. This might cause confusion to these external hosts. In
        addition, by using different external address pools on each NAT
        device, incoming datagrams of a given session from the external
        hosts are ensured to always traverse the same NAT device even
        after NAT failover happens. Note: after Primary NAT failed, the
        external hosts would no longer be able to return traffic to the
        existing sessions via the failed Primary NAT.

        For NAT46, the issue occurred in NAT44 and NAT64 cases will
        not happen when Primary and Backup NAT use the same external
        IPv6 address pool (i.e., the Prefix64). The NAT46 relies on
        stateless address translation for the internal hosts, hence the
        external hosts can use any NAT46 to reach the internal hosts.
        In Cold Standby Mechanism, the Primary and Backup NAT may use
        different Prefix64. This contrasts to Hot Standby Mechanism,
        where the Primary and Backup NAT must use the same Prefix64.

   4.1.3 NAT Reachability Announcement

   In order to force IP datagrams from internal realm to external realm
   to always traverse through the Primary NAT, the Primary NAT SHOULD
   announce into the internal realm the NAT reachability.

        For NAT44, the Primary NAT announces an IPv4 default route
        into the internal realm. When the Primary NAT fails, the Backup
        NAT (now elected as a new Primary NAT) will announce the IPv4
        default route. At any given time, there is only one NAT
        announces the default route.

        For DS-Lite, the Primary NAT announces a host route into the
        internal realm. When the Primary NAT fails, the Backup NAT (now
        elected as a new Primary NAT) will announce the host route. At
        any given time, there is only one NAT announces the host route.

        For NAT64, the Primary NAT announces a route for the Prefix64
        into the internal realm. If the Primary NAT fails, the Backup




Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

        NAT will announce a route for the Prefix64. At any given time,
        there is only one NAT announces the Prefix64.

        For NAT46, the Primary NAT announces a route for the internal
        address pool into the internal realm. If the Primary NAT fails,
        the Backup NAT will announce a route for the internal address
        pool.

   The Primary NAT SHOULD withdraw its previously announced route when
   it ceases the Primary role due to some reason, e.g.- it lost
   connectivity to the external realm.

   When the Primary NAT fails and the Backup NAT takes over, datagrams
   from the internal hosts destined to the external realm SHOULD pass
   through the Backup NAT. Hence, in case the Primary NAT and the
   Backup one are specified manually, the Backup NAT (or associated
   router) SHOULD announce into the internal realm the same route
   towards the external realm as that announced by the Primary NAT so
   as to prepare for the failover, but the cost of this route MUST be
   set a much higher value than that of the route announced by the
   Primary NAT. Alternatively, the Primary NAT announces several more
   specific routes into the internal realm while the Backup NAT
   announces an aggregate route. Taken the NAT46 as an example, the
   internal address pool is 10.0.0.0/8, the Primary NAT announces two
   more specific routes to 10.0.0.0/9 and 10.128.0.0/9 while the Backup
   NAT announces a aggregate route to 10.0.0.0/8. If the Primary NAT
   and the Backup NAT are automatically elected through a dedicated
   election process, the Backup NAT would be elected as a new Primary
   NAT when the old Primary one fails, so it is not necessary for the
   Backup NAT to make the above route announcements until it is elected
   as a new Primary NAT.

   In order to attract the incoming packets towards the internal hosts,
   the Primary and Backup NAT SHOULD announces into the external realm
   a route towards its own external address pool, respectively.

4.2. Hot Standby Mechanism

   4.2.1 Internal Realm

   This is identical to Section 4.1.1

   4.2.2 External Realm

   To preserve the established sessions during the failover, in
   addition to keeping the internal addresses for the external hosts



Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

   unchanged, the external addresses for the internal hosts must also
   be preserved.

   To preserve the external address of the internal host after NAT-ed,
   the NAT devices in a redundancy group MUST use an identical external
   address pool. In addition, they MUST assign the same external
   address (or address/port pair) for the same internal host.

   For NAT46, the Primary NAT and Backup NAT must use an identical
   Prefix64. For NAT44, NAT64 and DS-Lite, the NAT devices MUST use the
   same external address pool and the translation states on the Primary
   NAT device MUST be synchronized to the Backup NAT(s) in a timely
   fashion.

   4.2.3 NAT Reachability Announcement

   The Primary NAT (or its associated router) announces into the
   internal realm a route towards the external realm and announces into
   the external realm a route towards the external address pool. If the
   Primary NAT and the Backup NAT are specified manually, the Backup
   NAT device (or its associated router) should also announce those
   routes, but with higher enough cost or larger granularity. Once the
   connection to either the external realm or the internal realm is
   lost, the above routes should be withdrawn (either by the Primary
   NAT device itself or by a third party). When the Primary NAT fails,
   the datagrams towards the external realm will pass through the
   Backup NAT device. If the Primary NAT and the Backup are
   automatically elected through a dedicated election procedure, the
   Backup NAT would be elected as a new Primary NAT when the old
   Primary NAT device fails. Consequently, it is not necessary for the
   Backup NAT to make the above route announcement until it is elected
   as a new Primary NAT.

5. Load Balancing Mechanisms

   Based on the above redundancy mechanisms, one can further realize
   load balancing among a group of NAT devices. The basic idea is to
   create two redundancy groups (e.g., Group A and Group B) on these
   NAT devices, make one device as the Primary NAT for Group A and the
   Backup NAT for Group B, while make the other as the Primary NAT for
   Group B and the Backup NAT for Group A. Taking NAT64 as an example,
   NAT devices are configured with two IPv6 prefixes (e.g., Prefix64-A
   and Prefix64-B) corresponding to the two redundancy groups, and one
   device is designated as the Primary NAT for Group A and the Backup
   NAT for Group B, while the other as the Backup NAT for Group A and
   the Primary NAT for Group B. Therefore, the IPv6 datagrams towards



Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

   the IPv4 external realm are balanced among these NAT devices
   according to their destination addresses with different Prefix64
   prefixes.

   For load balancing together with cold standby, each NAT device could
   either use the same external address pool or different external
   address pools corresponding to these redundancy groups. However, in
   the case of NAT64, in order to easily determine which Prefix64
   should be used for synthesizing IPv6 address of a given IPv4 host in
   the return direction, it would be better to assign different address
   pools for different redundancy groups. In this way, the Prefix64 can
   be easily determined according to the destination IPv4 address in
   the return packets sent from the IPv4 host. Besides, the external
   address pools on one NAT device shouldn't have any overlap with
   those of the other NAT device. Otherwise, the same address or
   address/port pair could be assigned occasionally to different
   internal hosts. In contrast, for load balancing together with hot
   standby, different external address pools should be configured for
   these redundancy groups. Otherwise, the return packets towards the
   internal realm may be forwarded to a wrong NAT device.

6. Election Protocol Considerations

   An election process and associated protocol(s) is used to
   automatically elect one NAT device among a NAT redundancy group as
   the Primary NAT and the others as Backup NATs. Once the Primary NAT
   fails, the Backup NAT with the highest priority should take over the
   Primary NAT role after a short delay. The election protocol is also
   used to track the connectivity to the external realm and the
   internal realm. Once connections to the external realm or the
   internal realm lost, the NAT device is not qualified to be the
   Primary NAT and it will withdraw the route towards the external
   realm announced previously. In the case of hot standby, it should
   also withdraw the route towards the external address pool.

   As an implementation example, VRRP [RFC2338] can be used as the
   automatic election protocol. In addition, an interface tracking
   mechanism can also be used to adjust the priority to influence the
   election results.

   If two NAT devices are directly connected via an Ethernet network,
   VRRP can run directly on the Ethernet interfaces. Otherwise, some
   extra configuration or protocol changes need to be implemented. One
   option is to create conditions for VRRP to run among these devices.
   For example, to create a VPLS [RFC4761][RFC4762] instance and enable
   IP functions and run VRRP on those VLAN interfaces which are bound



Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

   to that VPLS instance. If enabling IP on those interfaces is not
   supported, the following trick to realize the same goal, but at a
   cost of consuming two physical interfaces on each NAT router: create
   a VPLS instance among a set of NAT devices, and on each of them one
   Ethernet interface is bound to that VPLS instance, and another IP-
   enabled Ethernet interface is locally connected with that interface.
   Then VRRP can run on those IP enabled Ethernet interfaces which are
   all connected to that VPLS instance. Another option is to enhance
   VRRP so that VRRP neighbors can be configured manually and VRRP
   messages can be exchanged directly between two neighbors in a
   unicast fashion.

   VRRP is only an implementation example of the election process.
   Other protocols may be used to manage the roles of Primary and
   Backup.

7. State Synchronization Protocol Considerations

   [NAT-Sync] defines a candidate solution to NAT state synchronization
   by using Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP) [RFC2334]. For
   more information about the proposed solution, the reader is invited
   to refer to [NAT-Sync].

8. Security Considerations

   TBD.

9. IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations for this document.

10. Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Dan Wing and Dave Thaler for their
   insightful comments and reviews, and thank Dacheng Zhang and Xuewei
   Wang for their valuable editorial reviews.

11. References

11.1. Normative References

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






Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

11.2. Informative References

   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
             Address NAT (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January 2001.

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

   [RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address
             Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)",
             RFC 2766, February 2000.

   [RFC4966] Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move the Network
             Address NAT - Protocol NAT (NAT-PT) to Historic Status",
             RFC 4966, July 2007.

   [RFC2338] Knight, S., et. al., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol",
             RFC2338, April 1998.

   [RFC2334] Luciani, J., Armitage, G., Halpern, J., and N. Doraswamy,
             "Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334,
             April 1998.

   [RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
             (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",RFC
             4761, January 2007.

   [RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and Kompella, V. (Editors), "Virtual Private
             LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
             Signaling", RFC 4762, January 2007.

   [NAT64] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "NAT64: Network
             Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to
             IPv4 Servers", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-08
             (work in progress), January 2010.

   [NAT444] Shirasaki, Y., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
             and H. Ashida, "NAT444 with ISP Shared Address",
             draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-02 (work in
             progress), September 2009.

   [DS-Lite] Durand, A., "Dual-stack lite broadband deployments post
             IPv4 exhaustion", draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-03
             (work in progress), February 2010.




Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Redundancy and Load Balancing         March 2010
                        Framework for Stateful NAT

   [Format] Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., Li, X.,
             "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-ietf-behave-
             address-format-02.txt (work in progress), December, 2009.

   [Framework] Baker, F., Li,X., Bao,C., Yin,K., "Framework for
             IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-
             07 (work in progress), February, 2010.

   [Shortage] Levis, P., Bouacadair, M., Grimault, J-L., Villefranque,
             A., "IPv4 Address Shortage: Needs and Open Issues", draft-
             levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework-02 (work in progress),
             June 2009.

   [NAT-Sync] Chen, D., Xu, X., Halpern, J., Boucadair, M., "NAT State
             Synchronization Using SCSP", draft-xu-behave-nat-state-
             sync-01 (work in progress), February, 2010

Authors' Addresses

   Xiaohu Xu
   Huawei Technologies,
   No.3 Xinxi Rd., Shang-Di Information Industry Base,
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100085
   P.R. China
   Email: xuxh@huawei.com

   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   3, av Francois Chateau
   Rennes 35000
   France
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com

   Yiu Lee
   Comcast
   1, Comcast center
   Philadelphia, PA  19103
   USA
   Email: yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com

   Gang Chen
   China Mobile
   53A,Xibianmennei Ave.
   Beijing  100053
   P.R.China
   Email: phdgang@gmail.com



Xu, et al.            Expires September 5, 2010              [Page 14]


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