Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements

Perreault, Simon; Penno, Reinaldo; Naito, Kengo; Boucadair, Mohamed; Sivakumar, Senthil

doi:10.17487/rfc7857

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue that the lack of guidelines and regulations for CGN deployment compounds the situation. While the IETF publishes best practices for general NAT behavior [6,21,33] as well as basic requirements for CGN deployments [34] (which, incidentally, many of our identified CGNs violate), dimensioning NATs at carrier-scale in a way that minimizes collateral damage remains a black art. Our finding that some large ISPs find the need to employ publicly routable (indeed, sometimes routed) address space for internal CGN deployment ( § 6.1) underlines the graveness of the situation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multi-perspective Analysis of Carrier-Grade NAT Deployment

Richter

Wohlfart

Vallina-Rodriguez

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As ISPs face IPv4 address scarcity they increasingly turn to network address translation (NAT) to accommodate the address needs of their customers. Recently, ISPs have moved beyond employing NATs only directly at individual customers and instead begun deploying Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs) to apply address translation to many independent and disparate endpoints spanning physical locations, a phenomenon that so far has received little in the way of empirical assessment. In this work we present a broad and systematic study of the deployment and behavior of these middleboxes. We develop a methodology to detect the existence of hosts behind CGNs by extracting non-routable IP addresses from peer lists we obtain by crawling the BitTorrent DHT. We complement this approach with improvements to our Netalyzr troubleshooting service, enabling us to determine a range of indicators of CGN presence as well as detailed insights into key properties of CGNs. Combining the two data sources we illustrate the scope of CGN deployment on today's Internet, and report on characteristics of commonly deployed CGNs and their effect on end users

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multi-perspective Analysis of Carrier-Grade NAT Deployment

Richter

Wohlfart

Vallina-Rodriguez

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although these technologies are not the primary scope of this document, the benchmarking methodology associated with singletranslation technologies as defined in Section 4.1 can be employed to benchmark implementations that use NAT44 (as defined by [RFC2663] with the behavior described by [RFC7857]) and implementations that use NAT66 (as defined by [RFC6296]). …”

Section: Nat44 and Nat66mentioning

confidence: 99%