Internet Engineering Task Force I. Yamagata
Internet-Draft S. Miyakawa
Intended status: BCP NTT Communications
Expires: April 21, 2011 A. Nakagawa
Japan Internet Exchange (JPIX)
H. Ashida
iTSCOM
October 18, 2010
Common requirements for IP address sharing schemes
draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-00
Abstract
This document defines common requirements of multiple types of Large
Scale Network Address Translation (NAT) that handles Unicast UDP, TCP
and ICMP.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The policy of assignment of LSN external IP address, port
and identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Requirements for UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Requirements for TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Requirements for ICMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Identifying particular users (BOTs, spammers, etc) . . . . . . 9
7.1. Store Translation Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Fixed port assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Considerations about limiting the number of LSN external
ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.2. Informative Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
1. Introduction
Now there are several IPv4 address sharing schemes such as Large
Scale NAT (as known as NAT444[I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr])
, DS-Lite[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite], A+P[I-D.ymbk-aplusp]
and so on under the discussion.
Those IPv4 address sharing schemes are intended to be used in the
middle of the ISP access network against IPv4 address shortage
problem by sharing one global IPv4 address by multiple users.
Authors believe that there are common requirements among all IPv4
address sharing schemes to make them "transparent" as much as
possible. At the BEHAVE working group of IETF, following RFCs have
already defined to achieve maximum transparency at the residential
CPE which has NAT function;
- RFC4787 : NAT Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP
- RFC5382 : NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP
- RFC5508 : NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP
However so, because those RFCs are mainly aimed at residential CPE
and any IPv4 address sharing schemes are a bit different from it, we
believe that requirements for LSN and other schemes should be defined
alternatively to those RFCs.
2. 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].
Readers are expected to be familiar with [RFC4787] and the terms
defined there. The following term are used in this document:
Large-Scale NAT(LSN): NAT devices placed between CPE and public
Internet by an operator. LSN converts CPE IP Address, CPE Port,
and CPE Identifier into LSN external IP Address, LSN external Port
and LSN external Identifier in communication between CPE and GGN
external.
LSN external realm: The realm where IPv4 global addresses are
assigned
LSN internal realm: The realm placed between LSN and CPEs
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
LSN external IP address: The IP address on LSN in LSN external
realm mapping to CPE IP address
LSN external port: The port on LSN in LSN external realm mapping
to CPE port
LSN external identifier: The identifier of ICMP on LSN in LSN
external realm mapping to CPE identifier
Customer Premises Equipment(CPE): The terminal which is placed in
LSN internal realm and may establish TCP sessions to LSN external
realm (e.g. a single PC or NATBox)
CPE IP address: The IP address on CPE in LSN internal realm
CPE port: The port on CPE in LSN internal realm
CPE identifier: CPE's identifier of ICMP in LSN internal realm
CPE 3-tuple: The tuple of TCP/UDP, CPE IP address, and CPE Port
Service Server (SS) The server an operator supplies various
services for CPE
Service Server (SS): The server placed in external realm
Service Provide Server (SPS): The server placed in external realm
and controlled by LSN administrators
++------++
| SS |
++------++
|
|
|
LSN external IP address Y1 |
LSN external port y1 |
++------++ LSN external realm
........... | LSN |...............
++------++ LSN internal realm
|
CPE IP address X1 |
CPE port x1 |
++------++
| CPE |
++------++
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
Figure 1. LSN network
3. The policy of assignment of LSN external IP address, port and
identifier
A LSN has a pool of LSN external IP addresses, ports and identifiers.
CPEs share LSN external IP addresses. Each LSN occupies combination
of LSN external IP address, LSN external port and LSN external
identifier exclusively. For a fair use of limited resources, LSN has
a limitation for the number of the LSN external ports per CPE. LSNs
need to keep high transparency to continue existing services after
LSN is introduced. Requirement of high transparency for LSN leads to
high scalability of LSN. High transparency means LSN basically keeps
communications among CPEs except effect of limitations of the number
of LSN external ports and TCP sessions.
A CPE MAY apply UDP hole punching or TCP hole punching for
interactive services among CPEs like Voice over IP and P2P. LSN
SHOLUD NOT interfere in services using UDP hole punching or TCP hole
punching.
REQ-1: A LSN MUST allocate one external IP address to each CPE.
a) LSN external IP address allocated to the CPE MUST be same for
the UDP, TCP and ICMP.
Justification: If a LSN allocates multiple LSN external IP addresses
to each CPE, some applications might not work.
REQ-2: A LSN MUST allocate LSN external ports which is mapped for CPE
ports of UDP.
a) A LSN MUST NOT overload LSN external port while a NAT UDP
mapping timer does not expire.
b) A LSN MAY reuse LSN external port after a NAT UDP mapping timer
expires.
c) A LSN SHOULD limit the number of the LSN external ports of UDP
per CPE.
d) The number of the LSN external ports of UDP per CPE which LSN
can allocate SHOULD be configurable for the administrator of LSN.
Justification: CPEs can communicate to CPE external realm fairly by
limiting the number of LSN external ports per CPE.
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
REQ-3: A LSN MUST allocate LSN external ports which is mapped for CPE
ports of TCP.
a) A LSN MUST NOT overload LSN external port while the port is
allocated for one or more TCP sessions originated by another CPE.
b) A LSN MAY reuse LSN external port while the port is allocated
for no session originated by any CPE.
c) A LSN SHOULD limit the number of the LSN external ports of TCP
per CPE.
d) The number of the LSN external ports of TCP per CPE SHOULD be
an administratively configurable option.
e) A LSN SHOULD limit the number of the new sessions of TCP per
time unit and per CPE.
Justification: CPEs can communicate to CPE external realm fairly by
limiting the number of LSN external ports per CPE. In addition, TCP
LSN external port MAY have TCP sessions, and therefore the TCP
session timer is necessary for every 5-Tuple. LSN can have not only
the limitations of the number of LSN external ports but also TCP
sessions per CPE. Thus a LSN can prevent denial of service attacks
with the tons of TCP open and close by malicious CPEs.
REQ-4: A LSN MUST allocate LSN external identifiers which is mapped
for CPE identifiers of ICMP.
a) A LSN MUST NOT overload LSN external identifier before an ICMP
Query session timer expires.
b) A LSN MAY reuse LSN external identifier after an ICMP Query
session timer expires.
c) A LSN SHOULD limit the number of the LSN external identifier
allocated per CPE.
d) The number of the LSN external identifiers per CPE which LSN
can allocate SHOULD be an administratively configurable option.
Justification: CPEs can communicate to CPE external realm fairly by
limiting the number of LSN external identifiers every CPE.
If a CPE has already consumed many LSN external ports, the CPE might
not use new ports because LSNs limit the number of ports.
REQ-5: A LSN MAY have implementations that some specific applications
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
can work well even if each CPE's usable number of LSN external ports
have already consumed.
Justification: Some specific applications don't work well due to
limitation of number of number of ports by LSN, therefore other
applications might be affected in the same CPE.
In Section 8 we discuss in detail.
4. Requirements for UDP
[RFC4787] describes requirements of the Unicast UDP of a NAT, and the
behavior of "Endpoint-Independent Filtering "is RECOMMNEDED, and a
NAT MUST have an "Endpoint-Independent Mapping" behavior to ensure
transparency of LSN.
To have "Endpoint-Independent Filtering" and "Endpoint-Independent
Mapping" behaviors for LSNs, LSNs help to establish UDP Hole Punching
among CPEs. In other words, the possibility of the establishment of
UDP Hole Punching among CPEs which have LSN is equal to the
possibility among CPEs which don's t have LSN. If LSNs have an
"Address-Dependent Mapping" or "Address and Port-Dependent Mapping"
behavior, the possibility that establishment of UDP Hole Punching is
less than when LSNs have an "Endpoint-Independent Mapping" behavior.
If LSNs have an "Address and Port-Dependent Filtering" behavior, the
possibility that establishment of UDP Hole Punching is less than when
LSNs have an "Endpoint-Independent Filtering" or "Address Dependent
Filtering" behavior.
If a LSN supports NAT Hairpinning, a CPE can communicate other CPEs
in LSN internal realm of the same LSN.
X1:x1
+------+ from X1:x1 to X2':x2'
| CPE1 |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>++----++X1':x1'
+------+ | |
| L |
| S |
X2:x2 | N |
+------+ from X1':x1' to X2:x2 | |
| CPE2 |<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<++----++X2':x2'
+------+
Figure 2. Hairpinning
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
REQ-6: A LSN SHOULD comply with [RFC4787] for unicast UDP, unless a)
applies.
a)It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have "Endpoint-Independent
Filtering" behavior.
Status: "If application transparency is most important, it is
RECOMMENDED that a NAT have Endpoint-Independent Filtering
behavior. If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have Address-Dependent
Filtering behavior." is written at REQ-8 in RFC4787.
Justification: LSN which is placed at ISP/Carrier makes much of
transparency. In particular, for applications that receive media
simultaneously from multiple locations (e.g., gaming), or
applications that use rendezvous techniques. But to be more precise,
in the LSN case, it may not be needed for some specific protocol such
as DNS query and response.
5. Requirements for TCP
[RFC5382] describes requirements of TCP of a NAT, and the behavior of
"Endpoint-Independent Filtering" is RECOMMNEDED, and a NAT MUST have
an "Endpoint-Independent Mapping" behavior to ensure transparency of
LSN
To have "Endpoint-Independent Filtering" and "Endpoint-Independent
Mapping" behaviors for LSNs, LSNs help to establish TCP Hole Punching
among CPEs. In other words, the possibility of the establishment of
TCP Hole Punching among CPEs which have LSN is equal to the
possibility among CPEs which don's t have LSN. If LSNs have an
"Address-Dependent Mapping" or "Address and Port-Dependent Mapping"
behavior, the possibility that establishment of TCP Hole Punching is
less than when LSNs have an "Endpoint-Independent Mapping" behavior.
If LSNs have an "Address and Port-Dependent Filtering" behavior, the
possibility that establishment of TCP Hole Punching is less than when
LSNs have an "Endpoint-Independent Filtering" or "Address Dependent
Filtering" behavior.
If a LSN supports NAT Hairpinning, a CPE can communicate other CPEs
in LSN internal realm of the same LSN.
REQ-7: A LSN SHOULD comply with [RFC5382] for TCP, unless a) applies.
a) It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Endpoint independent
filtering" behavior for TCP.
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
Status: "If application transparency is most important, it is
RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Endpoint independent filtering"
behavior for TCP. If a more stringent filtering behavior is most
important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Address dependent
filtering" behavior." is REQ-3 in RFC5382.
Justification: LSN which is placed at ISP/Carrier makes much of
transparency. But to be more precise, in the LSN case, it may not be
needed for some specific protocols.
6. Requirements for ICMP
[RFC5508] describes requirements of ICMP of a NAT. And there MAY be
a case that CPE cannot establish communication from CPEs to LSN
external realm because LSN limits the number of LSN external ports,
identifiers and TCP sessions per CPE. It is useful if CPE can
distinguish an error to occur by the limitation of the LSN external
ports, identifiers and TCP sessions from other errors.
REQ-8: A LSN SHOULD comply with [RFC5508] for ICMP.
Justification: LSN SHOULD have to keep high transparency for ICMP.
And CPE MAY use P2P and interactive services between CPEs after a LSN
is introduced.
Therefore, written in [RFC5508], when a LSN can't establish new
session of TCP/UDP by limiting of TCP/UDP ports per user, the LSN
sends an ICMP destination unreachable message, with code of 13
(Communication administratively prohibited) to the sender.
7. Identifying particular users (BOTs, spammers, etc)
It is necessary for network administrators to identify a user from an
IP address and a timestamp in order to deal with abuse and lawful
intercept. When multiple users share one external address at LSN,
the source address and the source port that are visible at the
destination host are translated ones. The following mechanisms can
be used to identify the user that transmitted a certain packet.
7.1. Store Translation Log
One mechanism stores the following information at LSN.
- destination address
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
- destination port
- translated source address
- translated source port
- untranslated source address
- untranslated source port
- timestamp
In such environment that one LSN accommodates a lot of users or
processes large amount of traffic, the amount of log will be so large
and the operator has to prepare large volume of storage.
7.2. Fixed port assignment
To save costs for storage, one can adopt this port assignment
mechanism at LSN. By fixing the range of external port per user/CPE,
and having the mapping of internal IP address to external IP address
and port, there will be no need to store per session log. Note that
this mechanism is possible only if the source port is known as well
as the source address, the destination address and the destination
port.
8. Considerations about limiting the number of LSN external ports
As discussed in section 3,4 and 5, LSN limits the number of LSN
external ports and identifier per CPE. Therefore some important
applications like DNS might not work well due to applications
consuming many LSN external ports.
There are two ways to solve this issue. The one is that particular
applications are out of the targets for the number of port limitation
for LSN. In the case, the applications should be configurable for
the administrator of LSN.
The other is that LSN doesn't translate address or port for some
specific applications, moreover it doesn't limit the number of LSN
external ports.(we call "LSN pass-through") Therefore, LSN behave as
a router. In this case, some specific applications are out of
limitation for the number of LSN external ports. Some applications,
which don't work well due to address translation like FTP, is
effective. Reducing costs of translation is also effective. As a
condition, administrators of LSN can control SPS which become a
target of LSN pass-through.
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
X1:x1 X1':x1' X2:x2
+---+from X1:x1 +---+fromX1:x1 +---+
| |to X2:x2 | | to X2:x2 | |
| C |>>>>>>>>>>>>| L |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>| S |
| P | | S | | P |
| E |<<<<<<<<<<<<| N |<<<<<<<<<<<<<<| S |
| |from X2:x2 | |fromX2:x2 | |
+---+ to X1:x1 +---+ to X1:x1 +---+
Figure 3. LSN pass-through
No matter which solutions you choose, you should consider which
applications you are out of limitation target for the number of LSN
external ports. When you choose too many applications, this might
cause LSNs large load.
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations.
10. Security Considerations
If malicious CPE can camouflage CPE 3-Tuple, the malicious CPE MAY
prevent a normal CPE from sending data to external realm. Therefore,
an operator SHOULD make policies to prevent a spoofing of CPE
3-tuple.
11. Acknowledgements
Thanks for the input and review by Tomohiro Nishitani, Yasuhiro
Shirasaki, Takeshi Tomochika, Kousuke Shishikura, Dai Kuwabara,
Tomoya Yoshida, Takanori Mizuguchi, Arifumi Matsumoto, Tomohiro
Fujisaki and Dan Wing.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, September 1981.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
January 2001.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
RFC 5382, October 2008.
[RFC5508] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
April 2009.
[I-D.shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr]
Shirasaki, Y., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J.,
and H. Ashida, "NAT444 addressing models",
draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-04 (work in
progress), July 2010.
12.2. Informative Reference
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite]
Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06 (work
in progress), August 2010.
[I-D.ymbk-aplusp]
Bush, R., "The A+P Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage",
draft-ymbk-aplusp-05 (work in progress), October 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Ikuhei Yamagata
NTT Communications Corporation
Gran Park Tower 17F, 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
Phone: +81 50 3812 4704
Email: ikuhei@nttv6.jp
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Large Scale NAT October 2010
Shin Miyakawa
NTT Communications Corporation
Gran Park Tower 17F, 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
Phone: +81 50 3812 4695
Email: miyakawa@nttv6.jp
Akira Nakagawa
Japan Internet Exchange Co., Ltd. (JPIX)
Otemachi Building 21F, 1-8-1 Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-0004
Japan
Phone: +81 90 9242 2717
Email: a-nakagawa@jpix.ad.jp
Hiroyuki Ashida
its communications Inc.
541-1 Ichigao-cho Aoba-ku
Yokohama 225-0024
Japan
Email: ashida@itscom.ad.jp
Yamagata, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 13]
