draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-02.txt		draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-03.txt
	OPSAWG V. Kuarsingh, Ed.		OPSAWG V. Kuarsingh, Ed.
	Internet-Draft J. Cianfarani		Internet-Draft J. Cianfarani
	Intended status: Informational Rogers Communications		Intended status: Informational Rogers Communications
	Expires: August 22, 2013 February 18, 2013		Expires: December 29, 2013 June 27, 2013
	CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs		CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
	draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-02		draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies a framework to integrate a Network Address		This document specifies a framework to integrate a Network Address
	Translation layer into an operator's network to function as a Carrier		Translation layer into an operator's network to function as a Carrier
	Grade NAT (also known as CGN or Large Scale NAT). The CGN		Grade NAT (also known as CGN or Large Scale NAT). The CGN
	infrastructure will often form a NAT444 environment as the subscriber		infrastructure will often form a NAT444 environment as the subscriber
	home network will likely also maintain a subscriber side NAT		home network will likely also maintain a subscriber side NAT
	function. Exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool is a major driver		function. Exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool is a major driver
	compelling some operators to implement CGN. Although operators may		compelling some operators to implement CGN. Although operators may
	skipping to change at page 1, line 31		skipping to change at page 1, line 31
	term needs may not be satisfied with an IPv6 deployment alone. This		term needs may not be satisfied with an IPv6 deployment alone. This
	document provides a practical integration model which allows the CGN		document provides a practical integration model which allows the CGN
	platform to be integrated into the network meeting the connectivity		platform to be integrated into the network meeting the connectivity
	needs of the subscriber while being mindful of not disrupting		needs of the subscriber while being mindful of not disrupting
	existing services and meeting the technical challenges that CGN		existing services and meeting the technical challenges that CGN
	brings. The model included in this document utilizes BGP/MPLS IP		brings. The model included in this document utilizes BGP/MPLS IP
	VPNs which allow for virtual routing separation helping ease the CGNs		VPNs which allow for virtual routing separation helping ease the CGNs
	impact on the network. This document does not intend to defend the		impact on the network. This document does not intend to defend the
	merits of CGN.		merits of CGN.
	Status of this Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 22, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. CGN Network Deployment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. CGN Network Deployment Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. Centralized versus Distributed Deployment . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. Centralized versus Distributed Deployment . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2. CGN and Traditional IPv4 Service Co-existence . . . . . . 6		3.2. CGN and Traditional IPv4 Service Co-existence . . . . . . 6
	3.3. CGN By-Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.3. CGN By-Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.4. Routing Plane Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.4. Routing Plane Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.5. Flexible Deployment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.5. Flexible Deployment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.6. IPv4 Overlap Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.6. IPv4 Overlap Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.7. Transactional Logging for LSN Systems . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.7. Transactional Logging for LSN Systems . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.8. Additional CGN Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.8. Additional CGN Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4. BGP/MPLS IP VPN based CGN Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. BGP/MPLS IP VPN based CGN Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.1. Service Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.1. Service Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2. Internal Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2. Internal Service Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2.1. Dual Stack Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.2.1. Dual Stack Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	4.3. Deployment Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		4.3. Deployment Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	4.4. Comparison of BGP/MPLS IP VPN Option versus other CGN		4.4. Comparison of BGP/MPLS IP VPN Option versus other CGN
	Attachment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Attachment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	4.4.1. Policy Based Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		4.4.1. Policy Based Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	4.4.2. Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		4.4.2. Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	4.4.3. Multiple Routing Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		4.4.3. Multiple Routing Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	5. Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		4.5. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	5.1. Basic Integration and Requirements Support . . . . . . . . 15		5. Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	5.2. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		5.1. Basic Integration and Requirements Support . . . . . . . 15
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		5.2. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	8. BGP/MPLS IP VPN CGN Framework Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 16		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		8. BGP/MPLS IP VPN CGN Framework Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 17
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Operators are faced with near term IPv4 address exhaustion		Operators are faced with near term IPv4 address exhaustion
	challenges. Many operators may not have a sufficient amount of IPv4		challenges. Many operators may not have a sufficient amount of IPv4
	addresses in the future to satisfy the needs of their growing		addresses in the future to satisfy the needs of their growing
	subscriber base. This challenge may also be present before or during		subscriber base. This challenge may also be present before or during
	an active transition to IPv6 somewhat complicating the overall		an active transition to IPv6 somewhat complicating the overall
	problem space.		problem space.
	To face this challenge, operators may need to deploy CGN (Carrier		To face this challenge, operators may need to deploy CGN (Carrier
	Grade NAT) as described in [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] to help		Grade NAT) as described in [RFC6888] to help extend the connectivity
	extend the connectivity matrix once IPv4 addresses caches run out on		matrix once IPv4 addresses caches run out on the local local
	the local local operator. CGN deployments will most often be added		operator. CGN deployments will most often be added into operator
	into operator networks which already have active IPv4 and/or IPv6		networks which already have active IPv4 and/or IPv6 services.
	services.
	The addition of the CGN introduces an operator controlled and		The addition of the CGN introduces an operator controlled and
	administered translation layer which should be added in a manner		administered translation layer which should be added in a manner
	which minimizes disruption to existing services. The CGN system		which minimizes disruption to existing services. The CGN system
	addition may also include interworking in a dual stack environment		addition may also include interworking in a dual stack environment
	where the IPv4 path requires translation.		where the IPv4 path requires translation.
	This document shows how BGP/MPLS IP VPNs as described in [RFC4364]		This document shows how BGP/MPLS IP VPNs as described in [RFC4364]
	can be used to integrate the CGN infrastructure solving key		can be used to integrate the CGN infrastructure solving key
	integration challenges faced by the operator. This model has also		integration challenges faced by the operator. This model has also
	skipping to change at page 5, line 34		skipping to change at page 5, line 32
	extend possible;		extend possible;
	Other requirements may be assessed on a operator-by-operator basis,		Other requirements may be assessed on a operator-by-operator basis,
	but those listed above may be considered for any given deployment		but those listed above may be considered for any given deployment
	architecture.		architecture.
	3.1. Centralized versus Distributed Deployment		3.1. Centralized versus Distributed Deployment
	Centralized deployments of CGN (longer proximity to end user and/or		Centralized deployments of CGN (longer proximity to end user and/or
	higher densities of subscribers/connections to CGN instances) differ		higher densities of subscribers/connections to CGN instances) differ
	from distributed deployments of CGN (closer proximity to end user		from distributed deployments of CGN (closer proximity to end user and
	and/or lower densities of subscribers/connections to CGN instances).		/or lower densities of subscribers/connections to CGN instances).
	Service providers may likely deploy CGN translation points more		Service providers may likely deploy CGN translation points more
	centrally during initial phases if the early system demand is low.		centrally during initial phases if the early system demand is low.
	Early deployments may see light loading on these new systems since		Early deployments may see light loading on these new systems since
	legacy IPv4 services will continue to operate with most endpoints		legacy IPv4 services will continue to operate with most endpoints
	using globally unique IPv4 addresses. Exceptional cases which may		using globally unique IPv4 addresses. Exceptional cases which may
	drive heavy usage in initial stages may include operators who already		drive heavy usage in initial stages may include operators who already
	translate a significant portion of their IPv4 traffic; may transition		translate a significant portion of their IPv4 traffic; may transition
	to a CGN implementation from legacy translation mechanisms (i.e.		to a CGN implementation from legacy translation mechanisms (i.e.
	traditional firewalls); or build a green field deployment which may		traditional firewalls); or build a green field deployment which may
	see quick growth in the number of new IPv4 endpoints which require		see quick growth in the number of new IPv4 endpoints which require
	skipping to change at page 7, line 39		skipping to change at page 7, line 37
	Operators may also want to choose models that support transition to		Operators may also want to choose models that support transition to
	other translation environments such as DS-Lite [RFC6333] and/or NAT64		other translation environments such as DS-Lite [RFC6333] and/or NAT64
	[RFC6146]. Operators will want to seek deployment models which are		[RFC6146]. Operators will want to seek deployment models which are
	conducive to meeting these goals as well.		conducive to meeting these goals as well.
	3.6. IPv4 Overlap Space		3.6. IPv4 Overlap Space
	IPv4 address overlap for CGN translation realms may be required if		IPv4 address overlap for CGN translation realms may be required if
	insufficient IPv4 addresses are available within the operator		insufficient IPv4 addresses are available within the operator
	environment to assign internally unique IPv4 addresses to the CGN		environment to assign internally unique IPv4 addresses to the CGN
	subscriber base . The CGN deployment should provide mechanisms to		subscriber base . The CGN deployment should provide mechanisms to
	manage IPv4 overlap if required.		manage IPv4 overlap if required.
	3.7. Transactional Logging for LSN Systems		3.7. Transactional Logging for LSN Systems
	CGNs may require transactional logging since the source IP and		CGNs may require transactional logging since the source IP and
	related transport protocol information is not easily visible to		related transport protocol information is not easily visible to
	external hosts and system.		external hosts and system.
	If needed, the CGN systems should be able to generate logs which		If needed, the CGN systems should be able to generate logs which
	identify 'internal' host parameters (i.e. IP/Port) and associated		identify 'internal' host parameters (i.e. IP/Port) and associated
	them to external translated parameters imposed by the translator.		them to external translated parameters imposed by the translator.
	The logged information should be stored on the CGN hardware and/or		The logged information should be stored on the CGN hardware and/or
	exported to an external system for processing. The operator may		exported to an external system for processing. The operator may
	choose to also enable mechanisms to help reduce logging such as block		choose to also enable mechanisms to help reduce logging such as block
	allocation of UDP and TCP ports or deterministic translation options		allocation of UDP and TCP ports or deterministic translation options
	such as [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn].		such as [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn].
	Operators may need to keep track of this information (securely) to		Operators may need to keep track of this information (securely) to
	meet regulatory and/or legal obligations. Further information can be		meet regulatory and/or legal obligations. Further information can be
	found in [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] with respect to CGN		found in [RFC6888] with respect to CGN logging requirements (Logging
	logging requirements (Logging Section).		Section).
	3.8. Additional CGN Requirements		3.8. Additional CGN Requirements
	The CGN platform will also need to meet the needs of additional		The CGN platform will also need to meet the needs of additional
	requirements such as Bulk Port Allocation and other CGN device		requirements such as Bulk Port Allocation and other CGN device
	specific functions. These additional requirements are captured		specific functions. These additional requirements are captured
	within [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements].		within [RFC6888].
	4. BGP/MPLS IP VPN based CGN Framework		4. BGP/MPLS IP VPN based CGN Framework
	The BGP/MPLS IP VPN [RFC4364] framework for CGN segregates the 'pre-		The BGP/MPLS IP VPN [RFC4364] framework for CGN segregates the 'pre-
	translated' realms within the service provider space into Layer-3		translated' realms within the service provider space into Layer-3
	MPLS based VPNs. The operator can deploy a single realm for all CGN		MPLS based VPNs. The operator can deploy a single realm for all CGN
	based flows, or can deploy multiple realms based on translation		based flows, or can deploy multiple realms based on translation
	demand and other factors such as geographical proximity. A realm in		demand and other factors such as geographical proximity. A realm in
	this model refers to a 'VPN' which shares a unique Route		this model refers to a 'VPN' which shares a unique Route
	Distinguisher/Route Target (RD/RT) combination, routing plane and		Distinguisher/Route Target (RD/RT) combination, routing plane and
	skipping to change at page 12, line 5		skipping to change at page 12, line 4
	Figure 2: Internal Services and CGN By-Pass		Figure 2: Internal Services and CGN By-Pass
	An extension to the services delivery LSP is the ability to also		An extension to the services delivery LSP is the ability to also
	provide direct subscriber to subscriber traffic flows between CGN		provide direct subscriber to subscriber traffic flows between CGN
	zones. Each zone or realm may be fitted with separate CGN resources,		zones. Each zone or realm may be fitted with separate CGN resources,
	but the subtending subscribers don't necessarily need to be mediated		but the subtending subscribers don't necessarily need to be mediated
	(translated) by the CGN translators. This option, as shown in Figure		(translated) by the CGN translators. This option, as shown in Figure
	3 below, is easy to implement and can only be enabled if no IPv4		3 below, is easy to implement and can only be enabled if no IPv4
	address overlap is used between communicating CGN zones.		address overlap is used between communicating CGN zones.
	Access Node-1 VRF Termination CGN-1
	+-------------+ +-----------+ +----------+		Access Node-1 VRF Termination CGN-1
	| | | | | |		+-------------+ +-----------+ +----------+
	CPE-1 | +---------+ | | +-------+ | | +------+ |		| | | | | |
	+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | |		CPE-1 | +---------+ | | +-------+ | | +------+ |
	| --+--+-+- VRF --+-+-+ | | VRF | | | | | |		+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | |
	+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |		| --+--+-+- VRF --+-+-+ | | VRF | | | | | |
	| +---------+ | | | +-------+ | | | | |		+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |
	| | | | | | |XLATE | |		| +---------+ | | | +-------+ | | | | |
	| | | | | | | | |		| | | | | | |XLATE | |
	CPE-2 | +---------+ | | | +-------+ | | | | |		| | | | | | | | |
	+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |		CPE-2 | +---------+ | | | +-------+ | | | | |
	| --+--+-+- GRT | | | | | GRT | | | | | |		+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |
	+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |		| --+--+-+- GRT | | | | | GRT | | | | | |
	| +---------+ | | | +-------+ | | +------+ |		+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |
	+-------------+ | +-----------+ +----------+		| +---------+ | | | +-------+ | | +------+ |
	|		+-------------+ | +-----------+ +----------+
	LSP |		|
	|		LSP |
	Access Node-2 | VRF Termination CGN-2		|
	+-------------+ | +-----------+ +----------+		Access Node-2 | VRF Termination CGN-2
	| | | | | | |		+-------------+ | +-----------+ +----------+
	CPE-3 | +---------+ | | | +-------+ | | +------+ |		| | | | | | |
	+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |		CPE-3 | +---------+ | | | +-------+ | | +------+ |
	| --+--+-+-- VRF --+-+-+ | | VRF | | | | | |		+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | |
	+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | |		| --+--+-+-- VRF --+-+-+ | | VRF | | | | | |
	| +---------+ | | +-------+ | | | | |		+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | |
	| | | | | |XLATE | |		| +---------+ | | +-------+ | | | | |
	| | | | | | | |		| | | | | |XLATE | |
	CPE-4 | +---------+ | | +-------+ | | | | |		| | | | | | | |
	+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | |		CPE-4 | +---------+ | | +-------+ | | | | |
	| --+--+-+- GRT | | | | GRT | | | | | |		+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | |
	+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | |		| --+--+-+- GRT | | | | GRT | | | | | |
	| +---------+ | | +-------+ | | +------+ |		+-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | |
	+-------------+ +-----------+ +----------+		| +---------+ | | +-------+ | | +------+ |
			+-------------+ +-----------+ +----------+
	The inherent capabilities of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN model demonstrates		The inherent capabilities of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN model demonstrates
	the ability to offer CGN By-Pass in a standard and deterministic		the ability to offer CGN By-Pass in a standard and deterministic
	manner without the need of policy based routing or traffic		manner without the need of policy based routing or traffic
	engineering.		engineering.
	4.2.1. Dual Stack Operation		4.2.1. Dual Stack Operation
	The BGP/MPLS IP VPN CGN model can also be used in conjunction with		The BGP/MPLS IP VPN CGN model can also be used in conjunction with
	IPv4/IPv6 dual stack service modes. Since many providers will use		IPv4/IPv6 dual stack service modes. Since many providers will use
	skipping to change at page 15, line 26		skipping to change at page 15, line 26
	Multiple routing topologies can be used to direct CGN based flows to		Multiple routing topologies can be used to direct CGN based flows to
	translators. This option would achieve the same basic goal as the		translators. This option would achieve the same basic goal as the
	MPLS/VPN option but with additional implementation overhead and		MPLS/VPN option but with additional implementation overhead and
	platform configuration complexity. Since operator based translation		platform configuration complexity. Since operator based translation
	is expected to have an unknown lifecycle, and may see various degrees		is expected to have an unknown lifecycle, and may see various degrees
	of demand (dependant on operator IPv4 Global space availability and		of demand (dependant on operator IPv4 Global space availability and
	shift of traffic to IPv6), it may be too large of an undertaking for		shift of traffic to IPv6), it may be too large of an undertaking for
	the provider to enabled this as their primary option for CGN.		the provider to enabled this as their primary option for CGN.
			4.5. Multicast Considerations
			When deploying BGP/MPLS IP VPN's as an service method for user plane
			traffic to access CGN, one needs to be cognizant of current or future
			IP multicast requirements. User plane IP Multicast which may
			originate outside of the VRF requires more consideration specific
			consideration. Adding the requirement for user plane IP multicast
			can potentially cause additional complexity related to import and
			exporting the IP multicast routes in addition to sub optimal scaling,
			and bandwidth utilization.
			It is recommended to reference best practice and designs from
			[RFC6037], [RFC6513], and [RFC5332]
	5. Experiences		5. Experiences
	5.1. Basic Integration and Requirements Support		5.1. Basic Integration and Requirements Support
	The MPLS/VPN CGN environment has been successfully integrated into		The MPLS/VPN CGN environment has been successfully integrated into
	real network environments utilizing existing network service delivery		real network environments utilizing existing network service delivery
	mechanisms. It solves many issues related to provider based		mechanisms. It solves many issues related to provider based
	translation environments, while still subject to problematic		translation environments, while still subject to problematic
	behaviours inherent within NAT.		behaviours inherent within NAT.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 33		skipping to change at page 17, line 42
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private		[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
	Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.		Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]		[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]
	Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., Sundaresan, K.,		Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., Sundaresan, K.,
	and O. Vautrin, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce		and O. Vautrin, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce
	Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments",		Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments", draft-donley-
	draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-05 (work in		behave-deterministic-cgn-05 (work in progress), January
	progress), January 2013.		2013.
	[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]		[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
	Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and U.		Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and U.
	Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on		Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on
	Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-05		Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-06
	(work in progress), October 2012.		(work in progress), April 2013.
	[I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]
	Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
	and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs
	(CGNs)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-10 (work in
	progress), December 2012.
	[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and		[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
	E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",		E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
	BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.		5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
	[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol		[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
	Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.		Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
			[RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
			Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
	[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4		[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
	Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",		Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification", RFC
	RFC 5969, August 2010.		5969, August 2010.
			[RFC6037] Rosen, E., Cai, Y., and IJ. Wijnands, "Cisco Systems'
			Solution for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", RFC 6037,
			October 2010.
	[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful		[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
	NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6		NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
	Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.		Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
	[RFC6264] Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental		[RFC6264] Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental
	Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264,		Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264,
	June 2011.		June 2011.
	[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-		[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
	Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4		Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
	Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.		Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
			[RFC6513] Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
			VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012.
	[RFC6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and		[RFC6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and
	M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address		M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address
	Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, April 2012.		Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, April 2012.
	Authors' Addresses		[RFC6888] Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
			and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs
			(CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, April 2013.
			Authors' Addresses
	Victor Kuarsingh (editor)		Victor Kuarsingh (editor)
	Rogers Communications		Rogers Communications
	8200 Dixie Road		8200 Dixie Road
	Brampton, Ontario L6T 0C1		Brampton, Ontario L6T 0C1
	Canada		Canada
	Email: victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com		Email: victor@jvknet.com
	URI: http://www.rogers.com		URI: http://www.rogers.com
	John Cianfarani		John Cianfarani
	Rogers Communications		Rogers Communications
	8200 Dixie Road		8200 Dixie Road
	Brampton, Ontario L6T 0C1		Brampton, Ontario L6T 0C1
	Canada		Canada
	Email: john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com		Email: john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com
	URI: http://www.rogers.com		URI: http://www.rogers.com
End of changes. 23 change blocks.
	99 lines changed or deleted		121 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/