softwire Working Group Y.Cui
Internet-Draft M. Xu
Intended status: Standards Track S.Wang
Expires: January 1, 2010 X.Li
J.Wu
Tsinghua University
Chris Metz
cisco systems
July 2, 2009
PET-based solution for IPv4/IPv6 coexistence
draft-cui-pet-00.txt
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 January 1, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
IPv6 offers significant advantages over IPv4, however it will take
long time to replace IPv4 with IPv6. Therefore, these two protocols are
expected to coexist during the transition period. Currently, there are
many transition devices deployed to solve transition problems. Most of
them only use one technology (either translation or tunneling). However,
any transition technology has limitation and application scope. In
transition scenarios, besides IP version of source, middle and destination
network, the network characteristic (a regular edge network or a backbone)
has key impact on system performance of transition methods. Therefore, we
need to decide which transition method should be used in some typical
transition scenarios and how the transition and tunneling devices
collaborate for solving transition problems. This draft introduces a smart
toolbox named PET (shortfor Prefixing, encapsulation and translation) which
includes all fundamental elements needed in all transition scenarios, such
as the control and data plane operations of tunneling and translation.
Based on PET, we propose a network side transition solution. In this framework,
there deploys only one kind of transition device, i.e. PET. Through the
collaboration of PETs, the transition problems can be solved. In this draft,
we give the advantages and disadvantages of all transition methods PET may adopt
according to IP version of source, middle and destination network, and the
network characteristic.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................2
2. Requirements Terminology....................................3
3. Fundamental requirements of IPv4-IPv6 transition methods....3
4. Descriptions of PET.........................................8
5. PET Framework...............................................9
5.1. IPv4-IPv6-IPv4........................................11
5.2. IPv4-IPv6-IPv6........................................12
5.3. IPv6-IPv6-IPv4........................................13
5.4. IPv6-IPv4-IPv6........................................16
5.5. IPv4-IPv4-IPv6........................................16
5.6. IPv6-IPv4-IPv4........................................18
6. Implementation issues......................................19
7. References.................................................20
7.1. Normative References..................................20
7.2. Informative References................................20
Author's Addresses............................................21
1. Introduction
Recently more and more IPv6 networks have been deployed, especially
IPv6 backbone networks, while the existing IPv4 networks still carry
the major network traffic and hold the major network services and
applications, though facing serious address space problem and other
problems. It has been agreed that IPv4 and IPv6 networks will co-
exist for a long term. This leads to the need of IPv4-IPv6 transition
methods.
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
There are many methods for IPv4-IPv6 transition, which can be roughly
classified into two groups: translation and tunneling. Translation is
a technology that translates emantic between IPv4 and IPv6. There are
many translation methods, such as SIIT [RFC 2765], NAT-PT [RFC 2766],
BIS [RFC 2767], SOCKS64 [RFC 3089], BIA [RFC 3338], IVI [draft-ietf-xli
-behave-ivi-02] and so on. Translation technology can realize IPv4
and IPv6 interworking directly, however, it will lead to information
loss.
Tunneling is a technology to encapsulate packets from a different
protocol within the protocol of the route that delivers it to the
target network. There are many tunneling methods, such as IP-in-IP
tunnel [RFC 2893, RFC 4213], GRE tunnel [RFC 1702], 6to4 tunnel
[RFC 2893], 6over4 tunnel [RFC 2529], softwire transition technology
[RFC 5565] and so on. Tunneling technology can not realize the IPv4 and
IPv6 interworking directly. It can only deal with the scenario where
two IPv4 (IPv6) nodes want to communicate with each other through
IPv6 (IPv4) network. However, tunneling technology has several
advantages, besides no information loss, it can be realized
easily by hardware, and does not introduce routing information
into a network with different address family.
Differnt transition methods need differnt transition devices, which
may produced by differnt device providers. It is hard for these
hetero-devices to collaberate for solving transition probelm. In addition,
there exit some transition scenarios where both translation and
tunneling technologies are needed. Moreover, in this case, using
translation first or tunneling first has important impact on system
performance due to their application scope and limitation. In current
transition framework, the transition method that the network adopts depends
on the transition devices the packets met, which cannot take advantage of
the characteristic of different transition technologies. Hence, it is
necessary to build a mechanism to decide where and when to use tunneling
or translation according to IP version of source, middle and destination
network, as well as the network characteristic (a regular edge network or
a backbone).
Aiming to the above probelms, this draft presents an IPv4-IPv6 transition
framework, which is a network side transition solution. It introduces a
toolbox named PET (short for Prefixing, encapsulation and translation) to
solve IPv4-IPv6 transition. PET includes all fundamental elements needed in
transition scenarios, which provides the flexibility for network to decide
the proper transition methods according to IP version of source, middle and
destination network as well as the network characteristic. In addition, the
PET-based transition framework makes network only need one kind of transition
device, which brings conveniences to consititue the transition policies.
This draft also addresses how to deploy PETs and analyze the advantages and
disadvantages of all transition methods that PET may adopt.
2. Requirements Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
3. Fundamental requirements of IPv4-IPv6 transition methods
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
There are two main IPv4-IPv6 transition scenarios. One is to
connect several edge networks with the same address family across a
transit core network with another address family; the other scenario
is to make hosts with one address family capable of directly
communicating with hosts with the other address family. We call the
first scenario heterogeneous crossing. The scenario where two IPv4 (IPv6) nodes
want to communicate with each other through IPv6 (IPv4) network
belongs to heterogeneous crossing (see figures 1 and 2). We call the
second scenario heterogeneous direct-connection. The scenario
where an IPv4 (IPv6) node wants to directly communicate with an IPv6
(IPv4) node belongs to heterogeneous direct-connection, (see figure 3
and 4).
+--------+ +--------+
| IPv6 | | IPv6 |
| Client | | Client |
| Network| | Network|
+--------+ +--------+
| | | |
| | | |
+--------+ +--------+
| AFBR | | AFBR |
+--| IPv4/6 |---| IPv4/6 |--+
| +--------+ +--------+ |
+--------+ | | +--------+
| IPv4 | | | | IPv4 |
| Client | | | | Client |
| Network|------| IPv4 |-------| Network|
+--------+ | only | +--------+
| |
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
| +--------+ +--------+ |
+--| AFBR |---| AFBR |--+
| IPv4/6 | | IPv4/6 |
+--------+ +--------+
| | | |
| | | |
+--------+ +--------+
| IPv6 | | IPv6 |
| Client | | Client |
| Network| | Network|
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 1: IPv6-over-IPv4 Scenario
+--------+ +--------+
| IPv4 | | IPv4 |
| Client | | Client |
| Network| | Network|
+--------+ +--------+
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
| / \ |
| / \ |
+--------+ +--------+
| AFBR | | AFBR |
+--| IPv4/6 |---| IPv4/6 |--+
| +--------+ +--------+ |
+--------+ | | +--------+
| IPv6 | | | | IPv6 |
| Client | | | | Client |
| Network|------| IPv6 |-------| Network|
+--------+ | only | +--------+
| |
| +--------+ +--------+ |
+--| AFBR |---| AFBR |--+
| IPv4/6 | | IPv4/6 |
+--------+ +--------+
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
+--------+ +--------+
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
| IPv4 | | IPv4 |
| Client | | Client |
| Network| | Network|
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 2: IPv4-over-IPv6 Scenario
+--------+ +--------+
| IPv4 | | IPv6 |
| |---| |
| Network| | Network|
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 3: IPv4-IPv6 scenario
+--------+ +--------+
| IPv6 | | IPv4 |
| |---| |
| Network| | Network|
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 4: IPv6-IPv4 scenario
In fact, all IPv4-IPv6 transition scenarios can be viewed as the
combination of heterogeneous crossing and direct-connection. Hence,
the fundamental transition elements needed in heterogeneous crossing
and direct-connection are those needed in all IPv4-IPv6 transition
scenarios.
In heterogeneous crossing scenario, tunneling technology can be
used to transmit IPv4 (IPv6) packets through IPv6 (IPv4) networks. In
addition, through twice translations, IPv4 (IPv6) packets can also be
transmitted through IPv6 (IPv4) networks in heterogeneous crossing
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
scenario. In heterogeneous direct-connection scenario, when IPv4
(IPv6) nodes want to communicate with IPv6 (IPv4) nodes directly, it
can only use translation technology.
In addition, when adopting tunneling for supporting IPv4/IPv6
inter-working, some control operations involved with subnet prefix
should be done beforehand. Theses operations include prefix
announcement, tunnel endpoint discovery, the selection of tunnel
endpoint and tunnel belonging to the same tunnel endpoint, tunnel
configuration, and so on. Similarly, when adopting translation method
for supporting IPv4/IPv6 inter-working, some control operations
involved with subnet prefix also should be done beforehand. These
operations include the establishment of address mapping mechanism,
prefix configuration and so on. We call these control operations
involved with subnet prefix prefixing.
In conclusion, there are three fundamental elements needed in all
IPv4-IPv6 transition scenarios, i.e. prefixing, encapsulation and
translation.
To realize a generic solution in network side for IPv4/IPv6
translation, this draft introduces a toolbox named PET which includes
the above fundamental elements. Its detailed descriptions are given
in section 4.
4. Descriptions of PET
PET is a smart transition toolbox supporting IPv4/IPv6 inter-
working. It can deal with the heterogeneous crossing and direct-
connection scenarios. Because all IPv4-IPv6 transition scenarios can
be viewed as the combination of the heterogeneous crossing and
direct-connection, the PET-based transition method is a generic
solution for IPv4/IPv6 transition. PET toolbox has the following
functions:
P: representing prefixing. Prefixing includes all transition
operations of control plane involved with subnet prefix.
In detail, in tunneling technology, prefixing includes prefix
announcement, tunnel endpoint discovery, the selection of tunnel
endpoint and tunnel belonging to the same tunnel endpoint, and so on.
For example, in softwire transition technology, the IPv6 prefix and
IPv4 next-hop mapping information should be announced out through
extended MP-BGP (Multi-protocol BGP) signaling beforehand. Based on
this prefixing operation, the auto 4over6 tunnels can be established.
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
In translation technology, prefixing includes the establishment of
address mapping mechanism, prefix configuration and so on. For
example, in IVI-based translation scheme, the global IPv6 prefix
should be configured in an autonomous domain (AS) beforehand, to form
the global IVI address, thus realizing the stateless translation.
E: representing encapsulation. E includes all tunneling operations
of data plane, such as encapsulation, decapsulation and maximum
transmission unit (MTU) processing and so on.
Through this operation, packets from IPv6 (IPv4) network are
encapsulated on the PET toolbox and sent across IPv4 (IPv6) backbone
to another IPv6 (IPv4) network according to the mappings stored on
the PET box.
T: representing translation. It includes all translation
operations of data plane, such as address mapping and protocol
translation, MTU processing.
Address mapping is to map IPv4 addresses to IPv6 addresses, and
vice versa. Based on address mapping, packets can be translated from
one address family to another. IPv4 and IPv6 are not directly
compatible, so programs and systems designed on one standard can not
communicate with those designed to the other. Hence we need protocol
translation. Here, protocol translation includes IP layer translation
and application layer translation. Through protocol translation, the
semantic of IP layer and application layer of an IPv4 packet is
equivalent with that of the translated IPv6 packet and vice versa. In
addition, to implement translation, PET may collaborate with the
domain name system (DNS).
The basic idea of our solution is to deploy several PET toolboxes
between backbone network and customer networks. The following section
will discuss how PET deals with different IPv4/IPv6 translation
scenarios in detail.
5. PET Framework
PET is an all-in-one solution for IPv4/IPv6 inter-working.
Basically, PET scheme integrates prefixing, translation and tunneling
schemes into one solution. Figure 5 shows the overall topology of PET
framework, which uses PET boxes between IPv6 backbone and IPv4
customer networks. In this topology, an IPv6 backbone is connected
with several customer networks including IPv4 backbone, IPv4 virtual
private networks (VPNs), IPv6 network and dual stack networks.
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
+------------------+
| |
| IPv4 backbone |
| |
+------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+--------+ +--------+
| PET | | PET |
+--| |---| |--+
| +--------+ +--------+ |
| |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +-------+
| IPv4 | | | IPv6 backbone | | | IPv4 |
|network |___| PET | | PET |__|network|
| | | | | | | |
| | +--------+ +--------+ | |
+--------+ | | +-------+
| |
| +--------+ +--------+ |
+--| PET |---| PET |--+
| | | |
+--------+ +--------+
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| X |
| / \ |
| / \ |
| / \ |
+--------+ +--------+
| IPv6 | | IPv4/ |
| | | IPv6 |
| Network| | Network|
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 5: Topology of PET Framework
For different transition scenarios, PET can provide different
functionalities to ensure the interworking of IPv4/IPv6 network. We
will analyze how PET works in all scenarios in the following
subsections.
5.1. IPv4-IPv6-IPv4
This is the scenario where an IPv4 network wants to talk with
another IPv4 network across IPv6 backbone. There are two methods for
PET to handle this scenario. One is translation and the other is
tunneling. If PET adopts translation method, we need twice
translations. In detail, an IPv4 packet need be translated by PET
into an IPv6 packet for being delivered through IPv6 backbone. When
this packet arrives at another PET, it will be translated into an IPv4
packet again for being delivered through IPv4 network.
The other method for IPv4-IPv6-IPv4 scenario is tunneling. This
requires a PET to encapsulate the packets and sent them to the tunnel
endpoint PET across IPv6 backbone. When these packets arrive at the
tunnel endpoint PET,they are de-capsulated and sent to IPv4 customer
networks.
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
Because translation method will incur information loss, PET
prefers to use tunneling technology to handle IPv4-IPv6-IPv4 scenario.
Its operations are shown in Fig.6.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|IPv4 customer| | PET | | PET | |IPv4 customer|
| network | | | | | | network |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
|--------pkt----->| | |
| encapsulation | |
| | | |
| |-------tunneling--->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | decapsulation |
| | |-------pkt------->|
| | | |
Figure 6 : PET operations in IPv4-IPv6-IPv4 scenario
5.2. IPv4-IPv6-IPv6
This is the scenario where an IPv4 customer network wants to talk
with an IPv6 customer network across IPv6 backbone. There are two
methods to deal with this scenario. One is translation plus
forwarding. The other is tunneling plus translation.
In the first method, when an IPv4 packet arrives at PET, it will
be translated into an IPv6 packet and then sent to the IPv6 network
through IPv6 backbone. In the second method, when an IPv4 packet
arrives at PET, it will be encapsulated as an IPv6 packet for being
delivered through IPv6 backbone. Once this packet arrives at the
tunnel endpoint PET, it will be decapsulated to the original IPv4
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
packet and then be translated as an IPv6 packet to deliver to the
IPv6 customer network.
If the IPv4 customer network is not an IPv4 backbone, PET prefers to
adopt the first method because this complexity of second method is higher
than that of the first method. Its operation is shown in Fig.7.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|IPv4 customer| | PET | | PET | |IPv6 customer|
| network | | | | | | network |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
|--------pkt----->| | |
| translation | |
| | | |
| |------forwarding--->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |-------pkt------->|
| | | |
Figure 7 : PET operations in IPv4-IPv6-IPv6 scenario (IPv4 customer network
is not an IPv4 backbone)
If the IPv4 customer network is an backbone, PET prefers to adopt the
second method for the following reasons:
i)Translation mechanism usually needs application level gateway
(ALG), which is an application specific agent that allows an
IPv6 node to communicate with an IPv4 node and vice versa.
Backbone network requires hardware forwarding for high speed
transmission. However, it is hard to use hardware to do the work
of ALG.
ii)To avoid single point of failure, several PETs usually be
deployed among networks. They improve performance and robustness
using dynamic routing mechanisms. However, translation is a
static process. It is hard to use dynamic routing mechanism.
iii)At last, some translation mechanisms, such as IVI-based scheme,
requires IPv4 routing information introducing to IPv6 backbone,
which will increase the routing base size.
Based on the above analyses, PET refers to adopt the second method
to deal with this scenario. Its operations are shown in Fig.8.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|IPv4 customer| | PET | | PET | |IPv6 customer|
| network | | | | | | network |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
|--------pkt----->| | |
| | | |
| encapsulation | |
| |------tunneling---->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | decapsulation |
| | translation |
| | |-------pkt------->|
| | | |
Figure 8: PET operations in IPv4-IPv6-IPv6 scenario (IPv4 customer network
is an IPv4 backbone)
5.3. IPv6-IPv6-IPv4
This is the scenario where an IPv6 customer network wants to talk
with an IPv4 customer network across IPv6 backbone. In this senario,
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
when an IPv6 packet arrives at PET, it will be translated as an IPv4
packet and then the PET encapsulates it and sent it to the tunnel
endpoint PET. When the translated IPv4 packet arrives at the tunnel
endpoint PET, it will be decapsulated and sent to the IPv4 customer
network. The operations are shown in Fig.9.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|IPv6 customer| | PET | | PET | |IPv4 customer|
| network | | | | | | network |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
|--------pkt----->| | |
| translation | |
| encapsulation | |
| |------tunneling---->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | decapsulation |
| | |-------pkt------->|
| | | |
Figure 9 : PET operations in IPv6-IPv6-IPv4 scenario
5.4. IPv6-IPv4-IPv6
This is the scenario where an IPv6 network wants to talk with
another IPv6 network across IPv4 backbone. This scenario is similar
to IPv4-IPv6-IPv4 scenario. Hence, PET prefers to use tunneling
technology to handle this scenario. Its operations are shown in
Fig.10.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|IPv6 customer| | PET | | PET | |IPv6 customer|
| network | | | | | | network |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
|--------pkt----->| | |
| encapsulation | |
| |------tunneling---->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | decapsulation |
| | |-------pkt------->|
| | | |
Figure 10 : PET operations in IPv6-IPv4-IPv6 scenario
5.5. IPv4-IPv4-IPv6
This is the scenario where an IPv4 customer network wants to talk
with an IPv6 customer network across IPv4 backbone. This scenario is
similar to IPv6-IPv6-IPv4 scenario. Hence, PET adopts the similar
method to deal with this scenario. Its operations are shown in
Figs.11.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|IPv4 customer| | PET | | PET | |IPv6 customer|
| network | | | | | | network |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
|--------pkt----->| | |
| translation | |
| encapsulation | |
| |------tunneling---->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | decapsulation |
| | |-------pkt------->|
| | | |
Figure 11 : PET operations in IPv4-IPv4-IPv6 scenario
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
5.6. IPv6-IPv4-IPv4
This is the scenario where an IPv6 customer network wants to talk
with an IPv4 customer network across IPv4 backbone. This scenario is
similar to IPv4-IPv6-IPv6 scenario. Hence, PET adopts the similar
method to deal with this scenario. Its operations are shown in Fig.12
and Fig.13.
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|IPv6 customer| | PET | | PET | |IPv4 customer|
| network | | | | | | network |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
|--------pkt----->| | |
| translation | |
| | | |
| |------forwarding--->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |-------pkt------->|
| | | |
Figure 12 : PET operations in IPv6-IPv4-IPv4 scenario (IPv6 customer network
is not a backbone)
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
|IPv6 customer| | PET | | PET | |IPv4 customer|
| network | | | | | | network |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | |
|--------pkt----->| | |
| | | |
| encapsulation | |
| |------tunneling---->| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | decapsulation |
| | translation |
| | |-------pkt------->|
| | | |
Figure 13: PET operations in IPv6-IPv4-IPv4 scenario (IPv6 customer network
is an backbone)
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
6. Implementation issues
In this draft, we recommend how to use tunneling and translation
method in each scenario using PETs. However, we do not restrict the
specific tunneling and translation technology that PET adopts. It can
be any transition technology, such as SIIT [RFC 2765], NAT-PT [RFC
2766], BIS [RFC 2767], SOCKS64 [RFC 3089], BIA [RFC 3338], IVI
[draft-ietf-xli-behave-ivi-02],iP-in-IP tunnel [RFC 2893, RFC 4213],
GRE tunnel [RFC 1702], 6to4 tunnel [RFC 2893], 6over4 tunnel [RFC
2529], softwire transition technology [RFC 5565] and so on.
7. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Lixia Zhang for her valuable commnets
on this draft.
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2765] E.Nordmark. "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
(SIIT)", RFC 2765, February 2000
[RFC2766] G. Tsirtsis, P. Srisuresh." Network Address Translation -
Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, February 2000
[RFC2767] K. Tsuchiya, H. Higuchi, Y. Atarashi. "Dual Stack Hosts
using the "Bump-In-the-Stack" Technique (BIS)", RFC 2767,
February 2000
[RFC3089] H. Kitamura." A SOCKS-based IPv6/IPv4 Gateway Mechanism",
RFC 3089, April 2001
[RFC3338] S. Lee, M-K. Shin, Y-J. Kim, E. Nordmark, A. Durand. "Dual
Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-API" (BIA)", RFC 3338,
October 2002
[RFC2893] R. Gilligan, E. Nordmark. "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6
Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000
[RFC4213] E. Nordmark, R. Gilligan. "Basic Transition Mechanisms for
IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005
[RFC1702] S. Hanks, T. Li, D. Farinacci, P. Traina." Generic Routing
Encapsulation over IPv4 networks", RFC 1702, October 1994
[RFC2893] R. Gilligan, E. Nordmark." Transition Mechanisms for IPv6
Hosts and Routers", RFC 2893, August 2000
[RFC2529] B. Carpenter, C. Jung." Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC2529, March 1999
[RFC5565] J. Wu, Y. Cui, C. Metz, E. Rosen. " Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, June 2009
8.2. Informative References
[I-D. draft-ietf-xli-behave-ivi-02]
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
X. Li,C.Bao,M.Chen,H.Zhang,J.Wu." The CERNET IVI
Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6
Coexistence and Transition", Internet Draft, June 13, 2009
Author's Addresses
Yong Cui
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn
Mingwei Xu
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: xmw@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Shengling Wang
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: slwang@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Xing Li
Tsinghua University
CERNET Center, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5983
Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft PET July 2009
Jianping Wu
Tsinghua University
CERNET Center, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5983
Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn
Chris Metz
cisco systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose 95134-1706
CA
Email: chmetz@cisco.com
Cui, et al. Expires January 2, 2010 [Page 22]