NAT64 Deployment Options and Experience
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, v6ops mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, v6ops chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'NAT64 Deployment Options and Experience' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-10.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'NAT64 Deployment Options and Experience' (draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-10.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Joel Jaeggli and Benoit Claise. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience/
Technical Summary This document summarizes NAT64 function deployment scenarios and operational experience. Both NAT64 Carrier Grade NAT (NAT64-CGN) and NAT64 server Front End (NAT64-FE) are considered in this document. Working Group Summary The original discussion is derived from the presentation of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/v6ops-5.pdf. Afterwards, it was documented as draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience in Feb 2012. The working group document is a report developed by several operators on the use of a NAT64 between an IPv6-only mobile network and the larger IPv4-only network. The draft has been discussed at length and in detail. There are some operators in the working group that have a problem with it because it openly discusses the use of RFC 6052/6144-6147 IPv4/IPv6 translation and RFC 4193 ULAs; they hold the viewpoint that translation and the use of non-global address space is philosophically and operationally problematic. For example, a matter dealt with in the draft in response to working group discussion, it often sacrifices geolocation information that is important to certain types of services. The authors of the draft also point out that running a dual stack mobile network is expensive for reasons specific to mobile networks, and view the trade-offs as acceptable given the economics. Document Quality As specified in the abstract, the document is not a protocol or procedure; it is a report of operational deployment and testing of a NAT64 service between an IPv6-only mobile network and the larger IPv4 Internet as well as a NAT64 service in an IDC environment. This testing includes the use of NAT64 CGN and NAT64 FE, its coexistence with more traditional NAT44, Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability issues, the transparency or lack of it regarding source addresses, Quality of Experience, MTU issues, and ULA-related issues. Personnel The document shepherd is Fred Baker. The responsible AD is Joel Jaegli.