Network working group X. Xu
Internet Draft Huawei
Category: BCP M. Boucadair
Expires: March 2011 France Telecom
Y. Lee
Comcast
G. Chen
China Mobile
September 10, 2010
Redundancy and Load Balancing Framework for Stateful Network Address
Translators (NAT)
draft-xu-behave-stateful-nat-standby-05
Abstract
This document defines a framework for ensuring redundancy and/or
load balancing for stateful Network Address Translators (NAT),
including NAT44, NAT64 and NAT46.
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 March 10, 2011.
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(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........................................5
4.1. Cold Standby Mode.......................................7
4.2. Hot Standby Mode........................................9
5. Load Balancing Mechanisms...................................10
5.1. Framework..............................................10
5.2. Load Balancing Considerations..........................11
6. Election Protocol Considerations............................12
7. State Synchronization Protocol Considerations...............13
8. Security Considerations.....................................13
9. IANA Considerations.........................................14
10. Acknowledgments............................................14
11. References.................................................14
11.1. Normative References..................................14
11.2. Informative References................................14
Authors' Addresses.............................................15
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 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]). 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: NAT44 including DS-Lite, NAT64
and NAT46. 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. 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).
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.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC2663]. Below are
provided terms specific to this document:
CGN (Carrier Grade 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 IP realms (i.e., IPv4 and IPv6).
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
Prefix64: an IPv6 prefix used for synthesizing IPv6 addresses
representing the external IPv4 hosts [Format].
CGN internal address realm (internal realm for short): a realm
internal to the CGN. For NAT44, the internal realm refers to
the private networks. For NAT64, the internal realm means IPv6
network or IPv6 Internet. For NAT46, the internal realm refers
to IPv4 network or IPv4 Internet. For DS-Lite, 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
(AFTR)) is a special NAT44 function which uses the IPv6 address
as a means to de-multiplex users sharing the same IPv4 address
[DS-Lite]. Furthermore, the hosts located in the internal realm
are called internal hosts, and the addresses used in the
internal realm are called internal addresses.
CGN external address realm (external realm for short): a realm
external to the CGN. 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. Furthermore, 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. 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.
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
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. This
is the reference architecture for the mechanisms we describe in this
memo. Note that these mechanisms are also suitable 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
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 NAT44, NAT64 and
NAT46 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, traffic exchanged between one host in the internal
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
realm and another host in the external realm is handled by the
Primary NAT. Once the Primary NAT is out of service, 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.
In order to implement the aforementioned procedure, means to detect
and to notify the failure of the Primary NAT to the redundancy group
SHOULD be activated.
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 ambiguous situation where
two or more NAT devices become Primary NAT. Moreover, the failover
SHOULD be quick to ensure service continuity and keep end-users from
perceiving service unavailability.
Three redundancy modes are described hereafter: the cold standby,
the hot standby and the partial hot standby modes:
The cold standby mode is simple. 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
be flushed out. The internal hosts are required to re-establish
sessions to the external hosts;
The hot standby mode keeps 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 partial hot standby mode is a flavor of the hot standby
mode described above. It is used to avoid replicating NAT
states of trivial sessions (e.g., short lifetime sessions)
while achieving hot standby for significant sessions (e.g.,
critical protocols or applications, long lifetime sessions
etc.). Criteria for sessions to be replicated on backup NATs
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
SHOULD be explicitly configured on the NAT devices of a
redundancy group.
The following sub-sections provide more information about the cold
standby and the hot standby modes.
4.1. Cold Standby Mode
4.1.1 Internal Realm
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 NAT64, the NAT devices belonging to a redundancy group
SHOULD be configured with an identical Prefix64. Since the
NAT64 uses stateless address translation for the external hosts,
using the same Prefix64 in the Backup NAT can guarantee the
internal hosts to see the same internal addresses for the
external hosts.
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 such as [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.
For NAT44, DS-Lite and NAT64: NAT devices SHOULD be configured
with different external IPv4 address pools. These address pools
are not overlapped. Otherwise, when the Primary NAT fails and
the Backup NAT takes over the Primary NAT, a NAT collision may
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
happen. For example, assuming a Primary NAT NAT-ed internal
host Host-A to IPv4-A. IPv4-A is an address which belongs to
the external address pool. If the Backup NAT after taking over
the primary NAT was configured with the same pool, the Backup
NAT MAY assign the same IPv4-A to another internal host Host-B.
So, Host-B may receive datagrams originally targeted for Host-A.
This might cause confusion to Host-B. 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 through the Backup NAT device after
the Primary NAT failover happens.
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 Prefix64s. In contrast, the Primary and Backup NAT in
Hot Standby mechanism MUST use an identical Prefix64.
4.1.3 NAT Reachability Announcement
In order to force the IP datagrams from the internal realm to always
traverse through the Primary NAT to the external realm, the Primary
NAT SHOULD announce into the internal realm a route towards the
external realm.
For NAT44, the Primary NAT announces an IPv4 default route
into the internal realm.
For DS-Lite, the Primary NAT announces a host route into the
internal realm.
For NAT64, the Primary NAT announces a route for the Prefix64
into the internal realm.
For NAT46, the Primary NAT announces a route for the internal
address pool into the internal realm (If the internal address
pool can be aggregated to one prefix).
The Primary NAT SHOULD attempt to withdraw its previously announced
routes when it ceases the Primary role due to pre-configured
conditions, e.g.- it loses the IP connectivity to the external realm.
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
When the Primary NAT fails and the Backup NAT takes over, datagrams
from the internal hosts destined for the external realm SHOULD pass
through the Backup NAT. Hence, when the Backup NAT is manually
configured to switch over to become the Primary NAT, the Backup NAT
(or associated router) SHOULD announce the same route into the
internal realm. but the routing cost of this route MUST be set to a
higher value than 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, assuming 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 respectively
while the Backup NAT announces an aggregate route to 10.0.0.0/8. In
case 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 once 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 for the external hosts to traverse through the NAT to reach
the internal hosts, the Primary and Backup NAT SHOULD announce a
route of its own external address pool into the external realm.
4.2. Hot Standby Mode
4.2.1 Internal Realm
The procedure is identical to Section 4.1.1.
4.2.2 External Realm
To preserve the established sessions during the failover and to keep
the internal addresses unchanged for the external hosts, 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) to a given internal host.
For NAT46, the Primary NAT and Backup NAT MUST use an
identical Prefix64.
For NAT44, DS-Lite and NAT64, the NAT devices in a redundancy
group MUST use the same external address pool and the
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
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
In order to force IP datagrams between the internal realm and the
external realm always traverse through the Primary NAT, the Primary
NAT (or its associated router) SHOULD announce into the internal
realm a route towards the external realm and announce into the
external realm a route towards the external address pool.
Once the connectivity to either the external realm or the internal
realm is lost, the Primary NAT device itself or a third party SHOULD
attempt to withdraw the above routes. 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, so as to prepare for the
failover.
When the Primary NAT fails, the datagrams towards the external realm
will pass through the Backup NAT device. In case 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
5.1. Framework
Based on the above redundancy modes, 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
prefix64s (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 the IPv4 external realm are balanced
among these NAT devices according to their destination addresses
with different Prefix64s.
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
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 SHOULD NOT 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.
5.2. Load Balancing Considerations
The NAT device which is used when translating outgoing packets MUST
be crossed by incoming packets. To achieve this, distinct external
IP addresses SHOULD be configured on each NAT device otherwise the
communication will fail.
Since distinct external IP addresses are used per NAT device, and
because a given customer should be seen with the same external IP
address, the same NAT device MUST be used for all the traffic issued
by the same customer. Therefore, the load balancing SHOULD NOT be
based on the traffic.
Criteria for distributing customers among a set of NAT devices MAY
be implemented during the IP configuration phase or during the
processing of actual traffic sent by the host. Below are listed some
examples:
For NAT64
DNS64 can be used as a means to load balance the hosts
among a group of NAT. In such case, DNS64 SHOULD be able
to assign the same NAT to the same hosts. Means to
identify the host should be supported. This is not
natively supported by DNS servers. A drawback of this mode
is that for traffic which does not require a DNS
resolution, the packets may flow using a distinct NAT
device, and therefore use a distinct external IP address.
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
Another alternative is to rely on DHCP to provision
dedicated DNS64. The load of NAT devices may be provided
to assist the selection of the DNS64 to be used for a new
connecting host.
For DS-Lite:
The same IPv6 address is assigned to the internal IP
interface of the AFTR; hosts are distributed natively
among NAT devices which are operational (anycast-based
mode). The efficiency of this mode depends on the
underlying topology and routing engineering policies. An
AFTR may be overload if the routing is not appropriately
tuned.
Distributing the hosts among a set of AFTR devices is
achieved during the provisioning phase. Based on actual
load criteria, the service provisioning platform (e.g.,
DHCP server) assigns a given AFTR to the requesting host.
Means to monitor the actual load of AFTR devices SHOULD be
supported. These means can be local (e.g., configure a
threshold of the number of customers to be services with
each AFTR device) or be dynamic based on the actual load
of AFTR devices.
Load balancing can be implemented during the DNS resolution
phase if a FQDN is provisioned to the host. During the DNS
resolution phase, an IP address is returned to the
requesting hosts based on the actual load of live AFTRs.
Another scheme when AFTRs are geo-graphically distributed,
the host uses the domain search name option together with
a generic FQDN name of the AFTR to retrieve the AFTR to
which the host is bound. This mode requires that
individual entries are configured in the DNS. No load-
based machinery is supported by the DNS server.
An additional scheme would be the deployment of a farm of NAT
devices with a load-balancer which is able to redirect the traffic
to the appropriate NAT instance. Load-balancing can be based on the
actual load of each NAT instance.
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
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
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
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 extend
VRRP so that VRRP neighbors can be specified manually and VRRP
messages can be exchanged directly among VRRP neighbors in unicast.
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.
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
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.
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.
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
[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, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-
stateful-12 (work in progress), July 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., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Lee, Y., "Dual-
stack lite broadband deployments post IPv4 exhaustion",
draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06 (work in progress),
Auguest 2010.
[Format] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and Li,
X., "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-ietf-
behave-address-format-10.txt (work in progress), August,
2010.
[Framework] Baker, F., Li,X., Bao,C., and Yin,K., "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-
07 (work in progress), February, 2010.
[NAT-Sync] Chen, D., Xu, X., Halpern, J., and Boucadair, M., "NAT
State Synchronization Using SCSP", draft-xu-behave-nat-
state-sync-02 (work in progress), August, 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
Xu, et al. Expires March 10, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Redundancy and Load Balancing September 2010
Framework for Stateful NAT
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