1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Cui
Request for Comments: 7596 Tsinghua University
Category: Standards Track Q. Sun
ISSN: 2070-1721 China Telecom
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
T. Tsou
Huawei Technologies
Y. Lee
Comcast
I. Farrer
Deutsche Telekom AG
July 2015
<span class="h1">Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-Stack Lite Architecture</span>
Abstract
Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) (<a href="./rfc6333">RFC 6333</a>) describes an architecture for
transporting IPv4 packets over an IPv6 network. This document
specifies an extension to DS-Lite called "Lightweight 4over6", which
moves the Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT) function from
the centralized DS-Lite tunnel concentrator to the tunnel client
located in the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). This removes the
requirement for a Carrier Grade NAT function in the tunnel
concentrator and reduces the amount of centralized state that must be
held to a per-subscriber level. In order to delegate the NAPT
function and make IPv4 address sharing possible, port-restricted IPv4
addresses are allocated to the CPEs.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596</a>.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions .....................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Terminology .....................................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Lightweight 4over6 Architecture .................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Lightweight B4 Behavior .........................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Lightweight B4 Provisioning with DHCPv6 ....................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Lightweight B4 Data-Plane Behavior ........................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-5.2.1">5.2.1</a>. Fragmentation Behavior .............................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Lightweight AFTR Behavior ......................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Binding Table Maintenance .................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. lwAFTR Data-Plane Behavior ................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Additional IPv4 Address and Port-Set Provisioning Mechanisms ...<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. ICMP Processing ................................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. ICMPv4 Processing by the lwAFTR ...........................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. ICMPv4 Processing by the lwB4 .............................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Security Considerations ........................................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
Acknowledgements ..................................................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
Contributors ......................................................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
Authors' Addresses ................................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) [<a href="./rfc6333" title=""Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion"">RFC6333</a>] defines a model for providing
IPv4 access over an IPv6 network using two well-known technologies:
IP in IP [<a href="./rfc2473" title=""Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification"">RFC2473</a>] and Network Address Translation (NAT). The
DS-Lite architecture defines two major functional elements as
follows:
Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4) element: A function implemented on a
dual-stack-capable node (either a directly connected device or a
CPE) that creates an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel to an AFTR.
Address Family Transition Router (AFTR) element: The combination of
an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel endpoint and an IPv4-IPv4 NAT implemented
on the same node.
As the AFTR performs the centralized NAT44 function, it dynamically
assigns public IPv4 addresses and ports to a requesting host's
traffic (as described in [<a href="./rfc3022" title=""Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)"">RFC3022</a>]). To achieve this, the AFTR must
dynamically maintain per-flow state in the form of active NAPT
sessions. For service providers with a large number of B4 clients,
the size and associated costs for scaling the AFTR can quickly become
prohibitive. Maintaining per-flow state can also place a large NAPT
logging overhead on the service provider in countries where logging
is a legal requirement.
This document describes a mechanism called "Lightweight 4over6"
(lw4o6), which provides a solution for these problems. By relocating
the NAPT functionality from the centralized AFTR to the distributed
B4s, a number of benefits can be realized:
o NAPT44 functionality is already widely supported and used in
today's CPE devices. lw4o6 uses this to provide private<->public
NAPT44, meaning that the service provider does not need a
centralized NAT44 function.
o The amount of state that must be maintained centrally in the AFTR
can be reduced from per-flow to per-subscriber. This reduces
the amount of resources (memory and processing power) necessary in
the AFTR.
o The reduction of maintained state results in a greatly reduced
logging overhead on the service provider.
Operators' IPv6 and IPv4 addressing architectures remain independent
of each other. Therefore, flexible IPv4/IPv6 addressing schemes can
be deployed.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed specifically for complete
independence between IPv6 subnet prefixes and IPv4 addresses with or
without IPv4 address sharing. This is accomplished by maintaining
state for each softwire (per-subscriber state) in the central lwAFTR
and a hub-and-spoke forwarding architecture. "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)" [<a href="./rfc7597" title=""Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)"">RFC7597</a>] also offers these
capabilities or, alternatively, allows for a reduction of the amount
of centralized state using rules to express IPv4/IPv6 address
mappings. This introduces an algorithmic relationship between the
IPv6 subnet and IPv4 address. This relationship also allows the
option of direct, meshed connectivity between users.
The tunneling mechanism remains the same for DS-Lite and Lightweight
4over6. This document describes the changes to DS-Lite that are
necessary to implement Lightweight 4over6. These changes mainly
concern the configuration parameters and provisioning method
necessary for the functional elements.
One of the features of Lightweight 4over6 is to keep per-subscriber
state in the service provider's network. This technique is
categorized as a "binding approach" [<a href="#ref-Unified-v4-in-v6">Unified-v4-in-v6</a>] that defines a
unified IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire CPE.
This document extends the mechanism defined in [<a href="./rfc7040" title=""Public IPv4-over-IPv6 Access Network"">RFC7040</a>] by allowing
address sharing. The solution in this document is also a variant of
Address plus Port (A+P) called "Binding Table Mode" (see <a href="./rfc6346#section-4.4">Section 4.4
of [RFC6346]</a>).
This document focuses on architectural considerations, particularly
on the expected behavior of the involved functional elements and
their interfaces. Deployment-specific issues such as redundancy and
provisioning policy are out of scope for this document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Terminology</span>
This document defines the following terms:
Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6): An IPv4-over-IPv6 hub-and-spoke
mechanism that extends DS-Lite by
moving the IPv4 translation (NAPT44)
function from the AFTR to the B4.
Lightweight B4 (lwB4): A B4 element [<a href="./rfc6333" title=""Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion"">RFC6333</a>] that supports
Lightweight 4over6 extensions. An lwB4
is a function implemented on a
dual-stack-capable node -- either a
directly connected device or a CPE --
that supports port-restricted IPv4
address allocation, implements NAPT44
functionality, and creates a tunnel to
an lwAFTR.
Lightweight AFTR (lwAFTR): An AFTR element [<a href="./rfc6333" title=""Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion"">RFC6333</a>] that supports
the Lightweight 4over6 extension. An
lwAFTR is an IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel
endpoint that maintains per-subscriber
address binding only and does not
perform a NAPT44 function.
Restricted port set: A non-overlapping range of allowed
external ports allocated to the lwB4 to
use for NAPT44. Source ports of IPv4
packets sent by the B4 must belong to
the assigned port set. The port set is
used for all port-aware IP protocols
(TCP, UDP, the Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP), etc.).
Port-restricted IPv4 address: A public IPv4 address with a restricted
port set. In Lightweight 4over6,
multiple B4s may share the same IPv4
address; however, their port sets must
be non-overlapping.
Throughout the remainder of this document, the terms "B4" and "AFTR"
should be understood to refer specifically to a DS-Lite
implementation. The terms "lwB4" and "lwAFTR" refer to a Lightweight
4over6 implementation.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Lightweight 4over6 Architecture</span>
The Lightweight 4over6 architecture is functionally similar to
DS-Lite. lwB4s and an lwAFTR are connected through an IPv6-enabled
network. Both approaches use an IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme to
deliver IPv4 connectivity. The following figure shows the data plane
with the main functional change between DS-Lite and lw4o6:
+--------+ +---------+ IPv4-in-IPv6 +---------+ +-------------+
|IPv4 LAN|---| B4 |================|AFTR/NAPT|---|IPv4 Internet|
+--------+ +---------+ +---------+ +-------------+
DS-Lite NAPT model: all state in the AFTR
+--------+ +---------+ IPv4-in-IPv6 +------+ +-------------+
|IPv4 LAN|---|lwB4/NAPT|================|lwAFTR|---|IPv4 Internet|
+--------+ +---------+ +------+ +-------------+
lw4o6 NAPT model:
subscriber state in the lwAFTR, NAPT state in the lwB4
Figure 1: Comparison of DS-Lite and Lightweight 4over6 Data Plane
There are three main components in the Lightweight 4over6
architecture:
o The lwB4, which performs the NAPT function and IPv4/IPv6
encapsulation/decapsulation.
o The lwAFTR, which performs the IPv4/IPv6 encapsulation/
decapsulation.
o The provisioning system, which tells the lwB4 which IPv4 address
and port set to use.
The lwB4 differs from a regular B4 in that it now performs the NAPT
functionality. This means that it needs to be provisioned with the
public IPv4 address and port set it is allowed to use. This
information is provided through a provisioning mechanism such as
DHCP, the Port Control Protocol (PCP) [<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>], or the Broadband
Forum's TR-69 specification [<a href="#ref-TR069" title=""CPE WAN Management Protocol"">TR069</a>].
The lwAFTR needs to know the binding between the IPv6 address of
each subscriber as well as the IPv4 address and port set allocated to
each subscriber. This information is used to perform ingress
filtering upstream and encapsulation downstream. Note that this is
per-subscriber state, as opposed to per-flow state in the regular
AFTR case.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
The consequence of this architecture is that the information
maintained by the provisioning mechanism and the one maintained by
the lwAFTR MUST be synchronized (see Figure 2). The precise
mechanism whereby this synchronization occurs is out of scope for
this document.
The solution specified in this document allows the assignment of
either a full or a shared IPv4 address to requesting CPEs. [<a href="./rfc7040" title=""Public IPv4-over-IPv6 Access Network"">RFC7040</a>]
provides a mechanism for assigning a full IPv4 address only.
+------------+
/-------|Provisioning|<-----\
| +------------+ |
| |
V V
+--------+ +---------+ IPv4/IPv6 +------+ +-------------+
|IPv4 LAN|---|lwB4/NAPT|==================|lwAFTR|----|IPv4 Internet|
+--------+ +---------+ +------+ +-------------+
Figure 2: Lightweight 4over6 Provisioning Synchronization
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Lightweight B4 Behavior</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Lightweight B4 Provisioning with DHCPv6</span>
With DS-Lite, the B4 element only needs to be configured with a
single DS-Lite-specific parameter so that it can set up the softwire
(the IPv6 address of the AFTR). Its IPv4 address can be taken from
the well-known range 192.0.0.0/29.
In lw4o6, a number of lw4o6-specific configuration parameters must be
provisioned to the lwB4. These are:
o IPv6 address for the lwAFTR
o IPv4 external (public) address for NAPT44
o Restricted port set to use for NAPT44
o IPv6 binding prefix
The lwB4 MUST implement DHCPv6-based configuration using
OPTION_S46_CONT_LW as described in <a href="./rfc7598#section-5.3">Section 5.3 of [RFC7598]</a>. This
means that the lifetime of the softwire and the derived configuration
information (e.g., IPv4 shared address, IPv4 address) are bound to
the lifetime of the DHCPv6 lease. If stateful IPv4 configuration or
additional IPv4 configuration information is required, DHCP 4o6
[<a href="./rfc7341" title=""DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) Transport"">RFC7341</a>] MUST be used.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
Although it would be possible to extend lw4o6 to have more than one
active lw4o6 tunnel configured simultaneously, this document is only
concerned with the use of a single tunnel.
The IPv6 binding prefix field is provisioned so that the Customer
Edge (CE) can identify the correct prefix to use as the tunnel
source. On receipt of the necessary configuration parameters listed
above, the lwB4 performs a longest-prefix match between the IPv6
binding prefix and its currently active IPv6 prefixes. The result
forms the subnet to be used for sourcing the lw4o6 tunnel. The full
/128 address is then constructed in the same manner as [<a href="./rfc7597" title=""Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)"">RFC7597</a>].
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Operator Assigned Prefix |
. (64 bits) .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Zero Padding | IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Addr cont. | PSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Construction of the lw4o6 /128 Prefix
Operator Assigned Prefix:
IPv6 prefix allocated to the client. If the prefix
length is less than 64, it is right-padded with zeros
to 64 bits.
Padding: Padding (all zeros).
IPv4 Address: Public IPv4 address allocated to the client.
PSID: Port Set ID. Allocated to the client; left-padded with
zeros to 16 bits. If no PSID is provisioned, all
zeros.
In the event that the lwB4's IPv6 encapsulation source address is
changed for any reason (such as the DHCPv6 lease expiring), the
lwB4's dynamic provisioning process MUST be re-initiated. When the
lwB4's public IPv4 address or Port Set ID is changed for any reason,
the lwB4 MUST flush its NAPT table.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
An lwB4 MUST support dynamic port-restricted IPv4 address
provisioning. The port-set algorithm for provisioning this is
described in <a href="./rfc7597#section-5.1">Section 5.1 of [RFC7597]</a>. For lw4o6, the number of
a-bits SHOULD be 0, thus allocating a single contiguous port set to
each lwB4.
Provisioning of the lwB4 using DHCPv6 as described here allocates a
single PSID to the client. In the event that the client is
concurrently using all of the provisioned L4 ports, it may be unable
to initiate any additional outbound connections. DHCPv6-based
provisioning does not provide a mechanism for the client to request
more L4 port numbers. Other provisioning mechanisms (e.g., PCP-based
provisioning [<a href="#ref-PCP-PORT_SET">PCP-PORT_SET</a>]) provide this function. Issues relevant
to IP address sharing are discussed in more detail in [<a href="./rfc6269" title=""Issues with IP Address Sharing"">RFC6269</a>].
Unless an lwB4 is being allocated a full IPv4 address, it is
RECOMMENDED that PSIDs containing the system ports (0-1023) not be
allocated to lwB4s. The reserved ports are more likely to be
reserved by middleware, and therefore we recommend that they not be
issued to clients other than as a deliberate assignment.
<a href="./rfc6269#section-5.2.2">Section 5.2.2 of [RFC6269]</a> provides analysis of allocating system
ports to clients with IPv4 address sharing.
In the event that the lwB4 receives an ICMPv6 error message (Type 1,
Code 5) originating from the lwAFTR, the lwB4 interprets this to mean
that no matching entry in the lwAFTR's binding table has been found,
so the IPv4 payload is not being forwarded by the lwAFTR. The lwB4
MAY then re-initiate the dynamic port-restricted provisioning
process. The lwB4's re-initiation policy SHOULD be configurable.
On receipt of such an ICMP error message, the lwB4 MUST validate the
source address to be the same as the lwAFTR address that is
configured. In the event that these addresses do not match, the lwB4
MUST discard the ICMP error message.
In order to prevent forged ICMP messages (using the spoofed lwAFTR
address as the source) from being sent to lwB4s, the operator can
implement network ingress filtering as described in [<a href="./rfc2827" title=""Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing"">RFC2827</a>].
The DNS considerations described in Sections <a href="#section-5.5">5.5</a> and <a href="#section-6.4">6.4</a> of [<a href="./rfc6333" title=""Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion"">RFC6333</a>]
apply to Lightweight 4over6; lw4o6 implementations MUST comply with
all requirements stated there.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Lightweight B4 Data-Plane Behavior</span>
Several sections of [<a href="./rfc6333" title=""Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion"">RFC6333</a>] provide background information on the
B4's data-plane functionality and MUST be implemented by the lwB4, as
they are common to both solutions. The relevant sections are:
5.2 Encapsulation Covering encapsulation and
decapsulation of tunneled traffic
5.3 Fragmentation and Reassembly Covering MTU and fragmentation
considerations (referencing
[<a href="./rfc2473" title=""Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification"">RFC2473</a>])
7.1 Tunneling Covering tunneling and Traffic
Class mapping between IPv4 and IPv6
(referencing [<a href="./rfc2473" title=""Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification"">RFC2473</a>]). Also see
[<a href="./rfc2983" title=""Differentiated Services and Tunnels"">RFC2983</a>]
The lwB4 element performs IPv4 address translation (NAPT44) as well
as encapsulation and decapsulation. It runs standard NAPT44
[<a href="./rfc3022" title=""Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)"">RFC3022</a>] using the allocated port-restricted address as its external
IPv4 address and range of source ports.
The working flow of the lwB4 is illustrated in Figure 4.
+-------------+
| lwB4 |
+--------+ IPv4 |------+------| IPv4-in-IPv6 +----------+
|IPv4 LAN|------->| |Encap.|-------------->|Configured|
| |<-------| NAPT | or |<--------------| lwAFTR |
+--------+ | |Decap.| +----------+
+------+------+
Figure 4: Working Flow of the lwB4
Hosts connected to the customer's network behind the lwB4 source IPv4
packets with an [<a href="./rfc1918" title=""Address Allocation for Private Internets"">RFC1918</a>] address. When the lwB4 receives such an
IPv4 packet, it performs a NAPT44 function on the source address and
port by using the public IPv4 address and a port number from the
allocated port set. Then, it encapsulates the packet with an IPv6
header. The destination IPv6 address is the lwAFTR's IPv6 address,
and the source IPv6 address is the lwB4's IPv6 tunnel endpoint
address. Finally, the lwB4 forwards the encapsulated packet to the
configured lwAFTR.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
When the lwB4 receives an IPv4-in-IPv6 packet from the lwAFTR, it
decapsulates the IPv4 packet from the IPv6 packet. Then, it performs
NAPT44 translation on the destination address and port, based on the
available information in its local NAPT44 table.
If the IPv6 source address does not match the configured lwAFTR
address, then the packet MUST be discarded. If the decapsulated IPv4
packet does not match the lwB4's configuration (i.e., invalid
destination IPv4 address or port), then the packet MUST be dropped.
An ICMPv4 error message (Type 3, Code 13 -- Destination Unreachable,
Communication Administratively Prohibited) MAY be sent back to the
lwAFTR. The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
The lwB4 is responsible for performing Application Layer Gateway
(ALG) functions (e.g., SIP, FTP) and other NAPT traversal mechanisms
(e.g., Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) IGD (Internet Gateway Device),
the NAT Port Mapping Protocol (NAT-PMP), manual binding
configuration, PCP) for the internal hosts, if necessary. This
requirement is typical for NAPT44 gateways available today.
It is possible that an lwB4 is co-located in a host. In this case,
the functions of NAPT44 and encapsulation/decapsulation are
implemented inside the host.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2.1" href="#section-5.2.1">5.2.1</a>. Fragmentation Behavior</span>
For TCP and UDP traffic, the NAPT44 implemented in the lwB4 MUST
conform to the behavior and best current practices documented in
[<a href="./rfc4787" title=""Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP"">RFC4787</a>], [<a href="./rfc5508" title=""NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP"">RFC5508</a>], and [<a href="./rfc5382" title=""NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP"">RFC5382</a>]. If the lwB4 supports the
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), then the requirements in
[<a href="./rfc5597" title=""Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol"">RFC5597</a>] MUST be implemented.
The NAPT44 in the lwB4 MUST implement ICMP message handling behavior
conforming to the best current practice documented in [<a href="./rfc5508" title=""NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP"">RFC5508</a>]. If
the lwB4 receives an ICMP error (for errors detected inside the IPv6
tunnel), the node relays the ICMP error message to the original
source (the lwAFTR). This behavior SHOULD be implemented conforming
to <a href="./rfc2473#section-8">Section 8 of [RFC2473]</a>.
If IPv4 hosts behind different lwB4s sharing the same IPv4 address
send fragments to the same IPv4 destination host outside the
Lightweight 4over6 domain, those hosts may use the same IPv4
fragmentation identifier, resulting in incorrect reassembly of the
fragments at the destination host. Given that the IPv4 fragmentation
identifier is a 16-bit field, it could be used similarly to port
ranges: An lwB4 could rewrite the IPv4 fragmentation identifier to be
within its allocated port set, if the resulting fragment identifier
space is large enough related to the rate at which fragments are
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
sent. However, splitting the identifier space in this fashion would
increase the probability of reassembly collision for all connections
through the lwB4. See also <a href="./rfc6864#section-5.3.1">Section 5.3.1 of [RFC6864]</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Lightweight AFTR Behavior</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Binding Table Maintenance</span>
The lwAFTR maintains an address binding table containing the binding
between the lwB4's IPv6 address, the allocated IPv4 address, and the
restricted port set. Unlike the DS-Lite extended binding table,
which is a 5-tuple NAPT table and is defined in <a href="./rfc6333#section-6.6">Section 6.6 of
[RFC6333]</a>, each entry in the Lightweight 4over6 binding table
contains the following 3-tuples:
o IPv6 address for a single lwB4
o Public IPv4 address
o Restricted port set
The entry has two functions: the IPv6 encapsulation of inbound
IPv4 packets destined to the lwB4 and the validation of outbound
IPv4-in-IPv6 packets received from the lwB4 for decapsulation.
The lwAFTR does not perform NAPT and so does not need session
entries.
The lwAFTR MUST synchronize the binding information with the
port-restricted address provisioning process. If the lwAFTR does not
participate in the port-restricted address provisioning process, the
binding MUST be synchronized through other methods (e.g., out-of-band
static update).
If the lwAFTR participates in the port-restricted provisioning
process, then its binding table MUST be created as part of this
process.
For all provisioning processes, the lifetime of binding table entries
MUST be synchronized with the lifetime of address allocations.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. lwAFTR Data-Plane Behavior</span>
Several sections of [<a href="./rfc6333" title=""Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion"">RFC6333</a>] provide background information on
the AFTR's data-plane functionality and MUST be implemented by the
lwAFTR, as they are common to both solutions. The relevant
sections are:
6.2 Encapsulation Covering encapsulation and
decapsulation of tunneled traffic
6.3 Fragmentation and Reassembly Fragmentation and reassembly
considerations (referencing
[<a href="./rfc2473" title=""Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification"">RFC2473</a>])
7.1 Tunneling Covering tunneling and Traffic
Class mapping between IPv4 and IPv6
(referencing [<a href="./rfc2473" title=""Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification"">RFC2473</a>]). Also see
[<a href="./rfc2983" title=""Differentiated Services and Tunnels"">RFC2983</a>]
When the lwAFTR receives an IPv4-in-IPv6 packet from an lwB4, it
decapsulates the IPv6 header and verifies the source addresses and
port in the binding table. If both the source IPv4 and IPv6
addresses match a single entry in the binding table and the source
port is in the allowed port set for that entry, the lwAFTR forwards
the packet to the IPv4 destination.
If no match is found (e.g., no matching IPv4 address entry, port out
of range), the lwAFTR MUST discard or implement a policy (such as
redirection) on the packet. An ICMPv6 Type 1, Code 5 (Destination
Unreachable, source address failed ingress/egress policy) error
message MAY be sent back to the requesting lwB4. The ICMP policy
SHOULD be configurable.
When the lwAFTR receives an inbound IPv4 packet, it uses the IPv4
destination address and port to look up the destination lwB4's IPv6
address in its binding table. If a match is found, the lwAFTR
encapsulates the IPv4 packet. The source is the lwAFTR's IPv6
address, and the destination is the lwB4's IPv6 address from the
matched entry. Then, the lwAFTR forwards the packet to the lwB4
natively over the IPv6 network.
If no match is found, the lwAFTR MUST discard the packet. An ICMPv4
Type 3, Code 1 (Destination Unreachable, Host Unreachable) error
message MAY be sent back. The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
The lwAFTR MUST support hairpinning of traffic between two lwB4s, by
performing decapsulation and re-encapsulation of packets from one
lwB4 that need to be sent to another lwB4 associated with the same
AFTR. The hairpinning policy MUST be configurable.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Additional IPv4 Address and Port-Set Provisioning Mechanisms</span>
In addition to the DHCPv6-based mechanism described in <a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>,
several other IPv4 provisioning protocols have been suggested. These
protocols MAY be implemented. These alternatives include:
o DHCPv4 over DHCPv6: [<a href="./rfc7341" title=""DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) Transport"">RFC7341</a>] describes implementing DHCPv4
messages over an IPv6-only service provider's network. This
enables leasing of IPv4 addresses and makes DHCPv4 options
available to the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 client. An lwB4 MAY implement
[<a href="./rfc7341" title=""DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) Transport"">RFC7341</a>] and [<a href="#ref-Dyn-Shared-v4Alloc">Dyn-Shared-v4Alloc</a>] to retrieve a shared IPv4
address with a set of ports.
o PCP [<a href="./rfc6887" title=""Port Control Protocol (PCP)"">RFC6887</a>]: an lwB4 MAY use [<a href="#ref-PCP-PORT_SET">PCP-PORT_SET</a>] to retrieve a
restricted IPv4 address and a set of ports.
In a Lightweight 4over6 domain, the binding information MUST be
synchronized across the lwB4s, the lwAFTRs, and the provisioning
server.
To prevent interworking complexity, it is RECOMMENDED that an
operator use a single provisioning mechanism / protocol for their
implementation. In the event that more than one provisioning
mechanism / protocol needs to be used (for example, during a
migration to a new provisioning mechanism), the operator SHOULD
ensure that each provisioning mechanism has a discrete set of
resources (e.g., IPv4 address/PSID pools, as well as lwAFTR tunnel
addresses and binding tables).
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. ICMP Processing</span>
For both the lwAFTR and the lwB4, ICMPv6 MUST be handled as described
in [<a href="./rfc2473" title=""Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification"">RFC2473</a>].
ICMPv4 does not work in an address-sharing environment without
special handling [<a href="./rfc6269" title=""Issues with IP Address Sharing"">RFC6269</a>]. Due to the port-set style of address
sharing, Lightweight 4over6 requires specific ICMP message handling
not required by DS-Lite.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. ICMPv4 Processing by the lwAFTR</span>
For inbound ICMP messages, the following behavior SHOULD be
implemented by the lwAFTR to provide ICMP error handling and basic
remote IPv4 service diagnostics for a port-restricted CPE:
1. Check the ICMP Type field.
2. If the ICMP Type field is set to 0 or 8 (echo reply or request),
then the lwAFTR MUST take the value of the ICMP Identifier field
as the source port and use this value to look up the binding
table for an encapsulation destination. If a match is found, the
lwAFTR forwards the ICMP packet to the IPv6 address stored in the
entry; otherwise, it MUST discard the packet.
3. If the ICMP Type field is set to any other value, then the lwAFTR
MUST use the method described in REQ-3 of [<a href="./rfc5508" title=""NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP"">RFC5508</a>] to locate the
source port within the transport-layer header in the ICMP
packet's data field. The destination IPv4 address and source
port extracted from the ICMP packet are then used to make a
lookup in the binding table. If a match is found, it MUST
forward the ICMP reply packet to the IPv6 address stored in the
entry; otherwise, it MUST discard the packet.
Otherwise, the lwAFTR MUST discard all inbound ICMPv4 messages.
The ICMP policy SHOULD be configurable.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2" href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. ICMPv4 Processing by the lwB4</span>
The lwB4 MUST implement the requirements defined in [<a href="./rfc5508" title=""NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP"">RFC5508</a>] for
ICMP forwarding. For ICMP echo request packets originating from the
private IPv4 network, the lwB4 SHOULD implement the method described
in [<a href="./rfc6346" title=""The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage"">RFC6346</a>] and use an available port from its port set as the ICMP
identifier.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Security Considerations</span>
As the port space for a subscriber shrinks due to address sharing,
the randomness for the port numbers of the subscriber is decreased
significantly. This means that it is much easier for an attacker to
guess the port number used, which could result in attacks ranging
from throughput reduction to broken connections or data corruption.
The port set for a subscriber can be a set of contiguous ports or
non-contiguous ports. Contiguous port sets do not reduce this
threat. However, with non-contiguous port sets (which may be
generated in a pseudorandom way [<a href="./rfc6431" title=""Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP IP Control Protocol (IPCP)"">RFC6431</a>]), the randomness of the
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
port number is improved, provided that the attacker is outside the
Lightweight 4over6 domain and hence does not know the port-set
generation algorithm.
The lwAFTR MUST rate-limit ICMPv6 error messages (see <a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>) to
defend against DoS attacks generated by an abuse user.
More considerations about IP address sharing are discussed in
<a href="./rfc6269#section-13">Section 13 of [RFC6269]</a>, which is applicable to this solution.
This document describes a number of different protocols that may be
used for the provisioning of lw4o6. In each case, the security
considerations relevant to the provisioning protocol are also
relevant to the provisioning of lw4o6 using that protocol. lw4o6
does not add any other security considerations specific to these
provisioning protocols.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.1" href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1918">RFC1918</a>] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp5">BCP 5</a>, <a href="./rfc1918">RFC 1918</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2473">RFC2473</a>] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", <a href="./rfc2473">RFC 2473</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4787">RFC4787</a>] Audet, F., Ed., and C. Jennings, "Network Address
Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
UDP", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp127">BCP 127</a>, <a href="./rfc4787">RFC 4787</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787,
January 2007, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5382">RFC5382</a>] Guha, S., Ed., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp142">BCP 142</a>,
<a href="./rfc5382">RFC 5382</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5382, October 2008,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5382">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5382</a>>.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5508">RFC5508</a>] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp148">BCP 148</a>, <a href="./rfc5508">RFC 5508</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5508, April 2009,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5508">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5508</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5597">RFC5597</a>] Denis-Courmont, R., "Network Address Translation (NAT)
Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp150">BCP 150</a>, <a href="./rfc5597">RFC 5597</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5597, September 2009,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5597">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5597</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6333">RFC6333</a>] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee,
"Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", <a href="./rfc6333">RFC 6333</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7598">RFC7598</a>] Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Farrer, I., Perreault, S., Dec,
W., Bao, C., Yeh, L., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6 Options for
Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped
Clients", <a href="./rfc7598">RFC 7598</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7598, July 2015,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7598">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7598</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.2" href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-B4-Trans-DSLite">B4-Trans-DSLite</a>]
Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and
I. Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the
DS-Lite Architecture", Work in Progress,
<a href="./draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-11">draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-11</a>,
February 2013.
[<a id="ref-DSLite-LW-Ext">DSLite-LW-Ext</a>]
Deng, X., Boucadair, M., and C. Zhou, "NAT offload
extension to Dual-Stack lite", Work in Progress,
<a href="./draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat-04">draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat-04</a>, October 2011.
[<a id="ref-Dyn-Shared-v4Alloc">Dyn-Shared-v4Alloc</a>]
Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Farrer, I., Lee, Y., Sun, Q., and
M. Boucadair, "Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4
Addresses", Work in Progress,
<a href="./draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-09">draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-09</a>, May 2015.
[<a id="ref-PCP-PORT_SET">PCP-PORT_SET</a>]
Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Sivakumar, S., Zhou, C., Tsou, T.,
and S. Perreault, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Extension
for Port Set Allocation", Work in Progress,
<a href="./draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-09">draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-09</a>, May 2015.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2827">RFC2827</a>] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp38">BCP 38</a>, <a href="./rfc2827">RFC 2827</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2983">RFC2983</a>] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
<a href="./rfc2983">RFC 2983</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3022">RFC3022</a>] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", <a href="./rfc3022">RFC 3022</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6269">RFC6269</a>] Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and
P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", <a href="./rfc6269">RFC 6269</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6269, June 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6269">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6269</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6346">RFC6346</a>] Bush, R., Ed., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to
the IPv4 Address Shortage", <a href="./rfc6346">RFC 6346</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6346, August 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6346">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6346</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6431">RFC6431</a>] Boucadair, M., Levis, P., Bajko, G., Savolainen, T., and
T. Tsou, "Huawei Port Range Configuration Options for PPP
IP Control Protocol (IPCP)", <a href="./rfc6431">RFC 6431</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6431, November 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6431">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6431</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6864">RFC6864</a>] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
<a href="./rfc6864">RFC 6864</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6887">RFC6887</a>] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", <a href="./rfc6887">RFC 6887</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7040">RFC7040</a>] Cui, Y., Wu, J., Wu, P., Vautrin, O., and Y. Lee, "Public
IPv4-over-IPv6 Access Network", <a href="./rfc7040">RFC 7040</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7040, November 2013,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7040">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7040</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7341">RFC7341</a>] Sun, Q., Cui, Y., Siodelski, M., Krishnan, S., and I.
Farrer, "DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) Transport",
<a href="./rfc7341">RFC 7341</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7341, August 2014,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7341">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7341</a>>.
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC7597">RFC7597</a>] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", <a href="./rfc7597">RFC 7597</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597</a>>.
[<a id="ref-Stateless-DS-Lite">Stateless-DS-Lite</a>]
Penno, R., Durand, A., Clauberg, A., and L. Hoffmann,
"Stateless DS-Lite", Work in Progress,
<a href="./draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02">draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02</a>, March 2012.
[<a id="ref-TR069">TR069</a>] Broadband Forum TR-069, "CPE WAN Management Protocol",
Amendment 5, CWMP Version: 1.4, November 2013,
<<a href="https://www.broadband-forum.org">https://www.broadband-forum.org</a>>.
[<a id="ref-Unified-v4-in-v6">Unified-v4-in-v6</a>]
Boucadair, M., Farrer, I., Perreault, S., Ed., and S.
Sivakumar, Ed., "Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire CPE", Work
in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-01">draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-01</a>, May 2013.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ole Troan, Ralph Droms, and Suresh
Krishnan for their comments and feedback.
This document is a merge of three documents: [<a href="#ref-B4-Trans-DSLite">B4-Trans-DSLite</a>],
[<a href="#ref-DSLite-LW-Ext">DSLite-LW-Ext</a>], and [<a href="#ref-Stateless-DS-Lite">Stateless-DS-Lite</a>].
Contributors
The following individuals contributed to this effort:
Jianping Wu
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
China
Phone: +86-10-62785983
Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn
Peng Wu
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
China
Phone: +86-10-62785822
Email: pengwu.thu@gmail.com
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
Qi Sun
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
China
Phone: +86-10-62785822
Email: sunqi@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Chongfeng Xie
China Telecom
Room 708, No. 118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing 100035
China
Phone: +86-10-58552116
Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn
Xiaohong Deng
The University of New South Wales
Sydney NSW 2052
Australia
Email: dxhbupt@gmail.com
Cathy Zhou
Huawei Technologies
Section B, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian Longgang
Shenzhen 518129
China
Email: cathyzhou@huawei.com
Alain Durand
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206
United States
Email: adurand@juniper.net
Reinaldo Penno
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
Email: repenno@cisco.com
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
Axel Clauberg
Deutsche Telekom AG
CTO-ATI
Landgrabenweg 151
Bonn 53227
Germany
Email: axel.clauberg@telekom.de
Lionel Hoffmann
Bouygues Telecom
TECHNOPOLE
13/15 Avenue du Marechal Juin
Meudon 92360
France
Email: lhoffman@bouyguestelecom.fr
Maoke Chen (a.k.a. Noriyuki Arai)
BBIX, Inc.
Tokyo Shiodome Building, Higashi-Shimbashi 1-9-1
Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-7310
Japan
Email: maoke@bbix.net
Authors' Addresses
Yong Cui
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
China
Phone: +86-10-62603059
Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Qiong Sun
China Telecom
Room 708, No. 118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing 100035
China
Phone: +86-10-58552936
Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
<span class="grey">Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7596">RFC 7596</a> Lightweight 4over6 July 2015</span>
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Tina Tsou
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States
Phone: +1-408-330-4424
Email: tena@huawei.com
Yiu L. Lee
Comcast
One Comcast Center
Philadelphia, PA 19103
United States
Email: yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com
Ian Farrer
Deutsche Telekom AG
CTO-ATI, Landgrabenweg 151
Bonn, NRW 53227
Germany
Email: ian.farrer@telekom.de
Cui, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
</pre>
|
