<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc2119 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc3633 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3633.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc3056 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.3056.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc1933 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.1933.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5969 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.5969.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2529 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2529.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5214 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.5214.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc4380 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4380.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2766 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2766.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6052 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6052.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6146 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6146.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6147 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6147.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6333 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6333.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6346 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6346.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6269 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6269.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6250 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6250.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2663 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2663.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6145 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6145.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc4443 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4443.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6324 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6324.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2827 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2827.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc4632 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4632.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc4821 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4821.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc4862 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4862.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc4953 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4953.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5961 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.5961.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6056 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6056.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6219 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6219.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc4787 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.4787.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5508 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.5508.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5382 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.5382.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2473 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.2473.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5383 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.5383.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6877 SYSTEM "reference.RFC.6877.xml">
]>

<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc comments="yes" ?>
<?rfc inline="yes" ?>

<rfc category="std" number="7599" ipr="trust200902" submissionType="IETF" consensus="yes">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="MAP-T">Mapping of Address and Port using Translation
    (MAP-T)</title>

    <author fullname="Xing Li" initials="X" surname="Li">
      <organization abbrev="Tsinghua University">CERNET Center/Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University</street>
          <city>Beijing  100084</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>xing@cernet.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Congxiao Bao" initials="C" surname="Bao">
      <organization abbrev="Tsinghua University">CERNET Center/Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University</street>
          <city>Beijing  100084</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>congxiao@cernet.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Wojciech Dec" initials="W" role="editor" surname="Dec">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Haarlerbergpark Haarlerbergweg 13-19</street>
          <city>Amsterdam, NOORD-HOLLAND</city>
          <code>1101 CH</code>
          <country>The Netherlands</country>
        </postal>
        <email>wdec@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Ole Troan" initials="O" surname="Troan">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Philip Pedersens vei 1</street>
          <city>Lysaker</city>
          <code>1366</code>
          <country>Norway</country>
        </postal>
        <email>ot@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Satoru Matsushima" initials="S" surname="Matsushima">
      <organization>SoftBank Telecom</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1-9-1 Higashi-Shinbashi, Munato-ku</street>
          <city>Tokyo</city>
          <country>Japan</country>
        </postal>
          <email>satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Tetsuya Murakami" initials="T" surname="Murakami">
      <organization>IP Infusion</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1188 East Arques Avenue</street>
          <city>Sunnyvale</city>
          <region>CA</region>
          <code>94085</code>
          <country>United States</country>
        </postal>
        <email>tetsuya@ipinfusion.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date month="July" year="2015"/>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document specifies the solution architecture based on "Mapping
      of Address and Port" stateless IPv6-IPv4 Network Address Translation
      (NAT64) for providing shared or non-shared IPv4 address
      connectivity to and across an IPv6 network.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>

    <section title="Introduction">

      <t>Experiences from initial service provider IPv6 network deployments,
      such as <xref target="RFC6219"> </xref>, indicate that successful
      transition to IPv6 can happen while supporting legacy IPv4 users without
      a full end-to-end dual-IP-stack deployment. However, due to public IPv4
      address exhaustion, this requires an IPv6 technology that supports IPv4
      users utilizing shared IPv4 addressing, while also allowing the network
      operator to optimize their operations around IPv6 network practices. The
      use of double NAT64 translation-based solutions is an optimal way to
      address these requirements, especially in combination with stateless
      translation techniques that minimize operational challenges outlined in
      <xref target="Solutions-4v6"/>.</t>

      <t>The Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T) architecture
      specified in this document is such a double stateless NAT64-based
      solution. It builds on existing stateless NAT64 techniques specified
      in <xref target="RFC6145"/>, along with the stateless algorithmic
      address and transport-layer port-mapping scheme defined in the
      Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E) specification
      <xref target="RFC7597"/>. The MAP-T solution differs from MAP-E
      in that MAP-T uses IPv4-IPv6 translation, rather than encapsulation,
      as the form of IPv6 domain transport. The translation mode is considered
      advantageous in scenarios where the encapsulation overhead, or IPv6
      operational practices (e.g., the use of IPv6-only servers, or reliance
      on IPv6 + protocol headers for traffic classification) rule out
      encapsulation. These scenarios are presented in <xref
      target="MAP-T-Use-Cases"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="conventions" title="Conventions">
      <t>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 <xref
      target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Terminology">
      <t><list hangIndent="24" style="hanging">
          <t hangText="MAP-T:">Mapping of Address and Port using
          Translation.</t>

          <t hangText="MAP Customer Edge (CE):">A device functioning as a
          Customer Edge router in a MAP deployment. A typical MAP CE
          adopting MAP Rules will serve a residential site with one WAN-side
          IPv6-addressed interface and one or more LAN-side interfaces
          addressed using private IPv4 addressing.</t>

          <t hangText="MAP Border Relay (BR):">A MAP-enabled router managed by
          the service provider at the edge of a MAP domain. A BR has at
          least an IPv6-enabled interface and an IPv4 interface
          connected to the native IPv4 network. A MAP BR may also be
          referred to as simply a "BR" within the context of MAP.</t>

          <t hangText="MAP domain:">One or more MAP CEs and BRs connected by
          means of an IPv6 network and sharing a common set of MAP Rules. A
          service provider may deploy a single MAP domain or may utilize
          multiple MAP domains.</t>

          <t hangText="MAP Rule:">A set of parameters describing the mapping
          between an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address, or shared IPv4 address and an
          IPv6 prefix or address. Each MAP domain uses a different mapping
          rule set.</t>

          <t hangText="MAP rule set:">A rule set is composed of all the
          MAP Rules communicated to a device that are intended to
          determine the device's IP+port mapping and forwarding operations.
          The MAP rule set is interchangeably referred to in this document as
          a MAP rule table or as simply a "rule table". Two specific types of
          rules -- the Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) and the Forwarding Mapping Rule
          (FMR) -- are defined in Section 5 of <xref target="RFC7597"/>.
          The Default Mapping Rule (DMR) is defined in this document.</t>

          <t hangText="MAP rule table:">See MAP rule set.</t>

          <t hangText="MAP node:">A device that implements MAP.</t>

          <t hangText="Port set:">Each node has a separate part of the
          transport-layer port space; this is denoted as a port set.</t>

          <t hangText="Port Set ID (PSID):">Algorithmically identifies a set
          of ports exclusively assigned to a CE.</t>

          <t hangText="Shared IPv4 address:">An IPv4 address that is shared
          among multiple CEs. Only ports that belong to the assigned port set
          can be used for communication. Also known as a port-restricted IPv4
          address.</t>

          <t hangText="End-user IPv6 prefix:">The IPv6 prefix assigned to an
          End-user CE by means other than MAP itself, e.g., provisioned using
          DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (PD) <xref target="RFC3633"/>, assigned via
          Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) <xref target="RFC4862"/>,
          or configured manually. It is unique for each CE.</t>

          <t hangText="MAP IPv6 address:">The IPv6 address used to reach the
          MAP function of a CE from other CEs and from BRs.</t>

          <t hangText="Rule IPv6 prefix:">An IPv6 prefix assigned by a
          service provider for a MAP Rule.</t>

          <t hangText="Rule IPv4 prefix:">An IPv4 prefix assigned by a
          service provider for a MAP Rule.</t>

          <t hangText="Embedded Address (EA) bits:"><vspace/>The IPv4
          EA-bits in the IPv6 address identify an IPv4 prefix/address
          (or part thereof) or a shared IPv4 address (or part thereof)
          and a Port Set Identifier.</t>
        </list></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Architecture">
      <t><xref target="arch"/> depicts the overall MAP-T architecture, which
      sees any number of privately addressed IPv4 users (N and M) connected
      by means of MAP-T CEs to an IPv6 network that is equipped with one or
      more MAP-T BRs. CEs and BRs that share MAP configuration parameters,
      referred to as "MAP Rules", form a MAP-T domain.</t>

      <t>Functionally, the MAP-T CE and BR utilize and extend some
      well-established technology building blocks to allow the IPv4 users to
      correspond with nodes on the public IPv4 network or on the IPv6 network
      as follows:</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>A (NAT44) Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT)
          <xref target="RFC2663"/> function on a MAP CE is
          extended with support for restricting the allowable TCP/UDP ports
          for a given IPv4 address. The IPv4 address and port range used are
          determined by the MAP provisioning process and identical to MAP-E
          <xref target="RFC7597"/>.</t>

          <t>A stateless NAT64 function <xref target="RFC6145"> </xref> is
          extended to allow stateless mapping of IPv4 and transport-layer port
          ranges to the IPv6 address space.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t><figure align="center" anchor="arch" title="MAP-T Architecture">
          <preamble/>

          <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[      User N
    Private IPv4
   |  Network
   |
O--+---------------O
|  | MAP-T CE      |
| +-----+--------+ |
| NAPT44|  MAP-T | |
| +-----+        | +-._   ,-------.                     .------.
|       +--------+ |   ,-'         `-.                ,-'       `-.
O------------------O  /              \   O---------O /   Public   \
                      /   IPv6-only   \  |  MAP-T  |/     IPv4     \
                     (    Network      --+  Border +-   Network     )
                      \               /  |  Relay  |\              /
O------------------O  \              /   O---------O \             /
|    MAP-T CE      |   ;".         ,-'                `-.       ,-'
| +-----+--------+ | ,"   `----+--'                      ------'
| NAPT44|  MAP-T | |,          |
| +-----+        | +        IPv6 node(s)
|   |   +--------+ |  (with IPv4-embedded IPv6 address)
O---+--------------O          
    |
      User M
    Private IPv4
      Network
        ]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t>Each MAP-T CE is assigned with a regular IPv6 prefix from the
      operator's IPv6 network. This, in conjunction with MAP domain
      configuration settings and the use of the MAP procedures, allows the
      computation of a MAP IPv6 address and a corresponding IPv4 address. To
      allow for IPv4 address sharing, the CE may also have to be configured
      with a TCP/UDP port range that is identified by means of a MAP Port Set
      Identifier (PSID) value. Each CE is responsible for forwarding traffic
      between a given user's private IPv4 address space and the MAP domain's
      IPv6 address space. The IPv4-IPv6 adaptation uses stateless NAT64, in
      conjunction with the MAP algorithm for address computation.</t>

      <t>The MAP-T BR connects one or more MAP-T domains to external IPv4
      networks using stateless NAT64 as extended by the MAP-T behavior
      described in this document.</t>

      <t>In contrast to MAP-E, NAT64 technology is used in the architecture
      for two purposes. First, it is intended to diminish encapsulation
      overhead and allow IPv4 and IPv6 traffic to be treated as similarly as
      possible. Second, it is intended to allow IPv4-only nodes to
      correspond directly with IPv6 nodes in the MAP-T domain that have
      IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses as per <xref target="RFC6052"/>.</t>

      <t>The MAP-T architecture is based on the following key properties:</t>

      <t><list style="numbers">
      <t>Algorithmic IPv4-IPv6 address mapping codified as MAP Rules, as
      described in <xref target="mapping-rules"/></t>

      <t>A MAP IPv6 address identifier, as described in
      <xref target="interface-id"/></t>

      <t>MAP-T IPv4-IPv6 forwarding behavior, as described
      in <xref target="forwarding"/></t>
    </list></t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="mapping-rules" title="Mapping Rules">
      <t>The MAP-T algorithmic mapping rules are identical to those in
      Section 5 of the MAP-E specification <xref target="RFC7597"/>,
      with the following exception: the forwarding of traffic to and from IPv4
      destinations outside a MAP-T domain is to be performed as described
      in this document, instead of Section 5.4 of the MAP-E specification.</t>

      <section anchor="dmr" title="Destinations outside the MAP Domain">
        <t>IPv4 traffic sent by MAP nodes that are all within one MAP domain
        is translated to IPv6, with the sender's MAP IPv6 address, derived via
        the Basic Mapping Rule (BMR), as the IPv6 source address and the
        recipient's MAP IPv6 address, derived via the Forwarding Mapping Rule
        (FMR), as the IPv6 destination address.</t>

        <t>IPv4-addressed destinations outside of the MAP domain are
        represented by means of IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses as per <xref
        target="RFC6052"/>, using the BR's IPv6 prefix. For a CE sending
        traffic to any such destination, the source address of the IPv6 packet
        will be that of the CE's MAP IPv6 address, and the destination IPv6
        address will be the destination IPv4-embedded IPv6 address. This
        address mapping is said to be following the MAP-T Default Mapping Rule
        (DMR) and is defined in terms of the IPv6 prefix advertised by one or
        more BRs, which provide external connectivity. A typical MAP-T CE will
        install an IPv4 default route using this rule. A BR will use this rule
        when translating all outside IPv4 source addresses to the IPv6 MAP
        domain.</t>

        <t>The DMR IPv6 prefix length SHOULD be 64 bits long by default and
        in any case MUST NOT exceed 96 bits. The mapping of the IPv4
        destination behind the IPv6 prefix will by default follow the /64 rule
        as per <xref target="RFC6052"/>. Any trailing bits after the IPv4
        address are set to 0x0.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="interface-id" title="The IPv6 Interface Identifier">
      <t>The interface identifier format of a MAP-T node is the same as the
      format described in Section 6 of <xref target="RFC7597"/>. The
      format diagram is provided here for convenience:</t>

      <figure align="left" anchor="interfaceid2-fig" title="IPv6 Interface Identifier">

          <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
                |          128-n-o-s bits          |
                | 16 bits|    32 bits     | 16 bits|
                +--------+----------------+--------+
                |   0    |  IPv4 address  |  PSID  |
                +--------+----------------+--------+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>

      <t>In the case of an IPv4 prefix, the IPv4 address field is right-padded
      with zeros up to 32 bits. The PSID is left-padded with zeros to create a
      16-bit field. For an IPv4 prefix or a complete IPv4 address, the
      PSID field is zero.</t>

      <t>If the End-user IPv6 prefix length is larger than 64, the most
      significant parts of the interface identifier are overwritten by the
      prefix.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="MAP-T Configuration">
      <t>For a given MAP domain, the BR and CE MUST be configured with the
      following MAP parameters. The values for these parameters are identical
      for all CEs and BRs within a given MAP-T domain.</t>

      <t><list style="symbols">
          <t>The Basic Mapping Rule and, optionally, the Forwarding Mapping
          Rules, including the Rule IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv4 prefix, and Length
          of embedded address bits</t>

          <t>Use of hub-and-spoke mode or Mesh mode (if all traffic should be
          sent to the BR, or if direct CE-to-CE correspondence should be
          supported)</t>

          <t>Use of IPv4-IPv6 translation (MAP-T)</t>

          <t>The BR's IPv6 prefix used in the DMR</t>
        </list></t>

      <section title="MAP CE">
        <t>For a given MAP domain, the MAP configuration parameters are the
        same across all CEs within that domain. These values may be conveyed
        and configured on the CEs using a variety of methods, including
        DHCPv6, the Broadband Forum's "TR-69" Residential Gateway management
        interface <xref target="TR069"/>, the Network Configuration Protocol
        (NETCONF), or manual configuration. This document does not prescribe
        any of these methods but recommends that a MAP CE SHOULD implement
        DHCPv6 options as per <xref target="RFC7598"/>.
        Other configuration and management methods may use the data model
        described by this option for consistency and convenience of
        implementation on CEs that support multiple configuration methods.</t>

        <t>Besides the MAP configuration parameters, a CE requires an IPv6
        prefix to be assigned to the CE. This End-user IPv6 prefix is
        configured as part of obtaining IPv6 Internet access and is acquired
        using standard IPv6 means applicable in the network where the CE is
        located.</t>

        <t>The MAP provisioning parameters, and hence the IPv4 service itself,
        are tied to the End-user IPv6 prefix; thus, the MAP service is also
        tied to this in terms of authorization, accounting, etc.</t>

        <t>A single MAP CE MAY be connected to more than one MAP domain,
        just as any router may have more than one IPv4-enabled
        service-provider-facing interface and more than one set of
        associated addresses assigned by DHCPv6. Each domain within which
        a given CE operates would require its own set of MAP configuration
        elements and would generate its own IPv4 address. Each MAP domain
        requires a distinct End-user IPv6 prefix.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="MAP BR">
        <t>The MAP BR MUST be configured with the same MAP elements as the MAP
        CEs operating within the same domain.</t>

        <t>For increased reliability and load balancing, the BR IPv6 prefix
        MAY be shared across a given MAP domain. As MAP is stateless, any BR
        may be used for forwarding to/from the domain at any time.</t>

        <t>Since MAP uses provider address space, no specific IPv6 or IPv4
        routes need to be advertised externally outside the service
        provider&rsquo;s network for MAP to operate. However, the BR prefix
        needs to be advertised in the service provider's IGP.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="forwarding" title="MAP-T Packet Forwarding">
      <t>The end-to-end packet flow in MAP-T involves an IPv4 or IPv6 packet
      being forwarded by a CE or BR in one of two directions for each such
      case. This section presents a conceptual view of the operations involved
      in such forwarding.</t>

      <section title="IPv4 to IPv6 at the CE">
        <t>A MAP-T CE receiving IPv4 packets SHOULD perform NAPT44
        processing and create any necessary NAPT44 bindings. The source
        address and source port range of packets resulting from the NAPT44
        processing MUST correspond to the source IPv4 address and source
        transport port range assigned to the CE by means of the MAP Basic
        Mapping Rule (BMR).</t>

        <t>The IPv4 packet is subject to a longest IPv4 destination address +
        port match MAP Rule selection, which then determines the parameters
        for the subsequent NAT64 operation. By default, all traffic is matched
        to the DMR and is subject to the stateless NAT64 operation
        using the DMR parameters for NAT64 (<xref target="dmr"/>).
        Packets that are matched to (optional) Forwarding Mapping Rules (FMRs)
        are subject to the stateless NAT64 operation using the FMR parameters
        (<xref target="mapping-rules"/>) for the MAP algorithm. In all cases,
        the CE's MAP IPv6 address (<xref target="interface-id"/>) is used as a
        source address.</t>

        <t>A MAP-T CE MUST support a Default Mapping Rule and SHOULD support
        one or more Forwarding Mapping Rules.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="IPv6 to IPv4 at the CE">
        <t>A MAP-T CE receiving an IPv6 packet performs its regular IPv6
        operations (filtering, pre-routing, etc.). Only packets that are
        addressed to the CE's MAP-T IPv6 addresses, and with source addresses
        matching the IPv6 MAP Rule prefixes of a DMR or FMR, are processed by
        the MAP-T CE, with the DMR or FMR being selected based on a longest
        match. The CE MUST check that each MAP-T received packet's
        transport-layer destination port number is in the range allowed for by
        the CE's MAP BMR configuration. The CE MUST silently drop any
        nonconforming packet and increment an appropriate counter. When
        receiving a packet whose source IP address longest matches an FMR
        prefix, the CE MUST perform a check of consistency of the source
        address against the allowed values as per the derived allocated source
        port range. If the source port number of a packet is found to be
        outside the allocated range, the CE MUST drop the packet and SHOULD
        respond with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, source address failed
        ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5).</t>

        <t>For each MAP-T processed packet, the CE's NAT64 function MUST
        compute an IPv4 source and destination address. The IPv4 destination
        address is computed by extracting relevant information from the IPv6
        destination and the information stored in the BMR as per <xref
        target="mapping-rules"/>. The IPv4 source address is formed by
        classifying a packet's source as longest matching a DMR or FMR rule
        prefix, and then using the respective rule parameters for the NAT64
        operation.</t>

        <t>The resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE&rsquo;s
        NAPT44 function, where the destination IPv4 address and port number
        MUST be mapped to their original value before being forwarded
        according to the CE's regular IPv4 rules. When the NAPT44 function is
        not enabled, by virtue of MAP configuration, the traffic from the
        stateless NAT64 function is directly forwarded according to the CE's
        IPv4 rules.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="IPv6 to IPv4 at the BR">
        <t>A MAP-T BR receiving an IPv6 packet MUST select a matching MAP Rule
        based on a longest address match of the packet's source address
        against the MAP Rules present on the BR. In combination with the
        Port Set ID derived from the packet's source IPv6 address, the
        selected MAP Rule allows the BR to verify that the CE is using its
        allowed address and port range. Thus, the BR MUST perform a validation
        of the consistency of the source against the allowed values from the
        identified port range. If the packet's source port number is found to
        be outside the range allowed, the BR MUST drop the packet and
        increment a counter to indicate the event. The BR SHOULD also respond
        with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, source address failed
        ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5).</t>

        <t>When constructing the IPv4 packet, the BR MUST derive the source
        and destination IPv4 addresses as per <xref target="mapping-rules"/>
        of this document and translate the IPv6-to-IPv4 headers as
        per <xref target="RFC6145"/>. The resulting IPv4 packet is then
        passed to regular IPv4 forwarding.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="IPv4 to IPv6 at the BR">
        <t>A MAP-T BR receiving IPv4 packets uses a longest match IPv4 +
        transport-layer port lookup to identify the target MAP-T domain and
        select the FMR and DMR rules. The MAP-T BR MUST then compute and apply
        the IPv6 destination addresses from the IPv4 destination address and
        port as per the selected FMR. The MAP-T BR MUST also compute and apply
        the IPv6 source addresses from the IPv4 source address as per <xref
        target="dmr"/> (i.e., using the IPv4 source and the BR's IPv6 prefix,
        it forms an IPv6-embedded IPv4 address). The generic IPv4-to-IPv6
        header translation procedures outlined in <xref target="RFC6145"/>
        apply throughout. The resulting IPv6 packets are then passed to
        regular IPv6 forwarding.</t>

        <t>Note that the operation of a BR, when forwarding to/from MAP-T
        domains that are defined without IPv4 address sharing, is the same as
        that of stateless NAT64 IPv4/IPv6 translation.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="ICMP Handling">
      <t>MAP-T CEs and BRs MUST follow ICMP/ICMPv6 translation as per <xref
      target="RFC6145"/>; however, additional behavior is also required due to
      the presence of NAPT44. Unlike TCP and UDP, which provide two
      transport-protocol port fields to represent both source and
      destination, the ICMP/ICMPv6 <xref target="RFC792"/>
      <xref target="RFC4443"/> Query message header has only one ID field,
      which needs to be used to identify a sending IPv4 host. When
      receiving IPv4 ICMP messages, the MAP-T CE MUST rewrite the ID field
      to a port value derived from the CE's Port Set ID.</t>

      <t>A MAP-T BR receiving an IPv4 ICMP packet that contains an ID field
      that is bound for a shared address in the MAP-T domain SHOULD use the
      ID value as a substitute for the destination port in determining the
      IPv6 destination address. In all other cases, the MAP-T BR MUST derive
      the destination IPv6 address by simply mapping the destination IPv4
      address without additional port information.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery">
      <t>Due to the different sizes of the IPv4 and IPv6 headers, handling the
      maximum packet size is relevant for the operation of any system
      connecting the two address families. There are three mechanisms to
      handle this issue: Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD), fragmentation, and
      transport-layer negotiation such as the TCP Maximum Segment Size (MSS)
      option <xref target="RFC879"/>. MAP can use all three mechanisms to
      deal with different cases.</t>

      <t>Note: The NAT64 <xref target="RFC6145"> </xref> mechanism is not
      lossless. When IPv4-originated communication traverses a double
      NAT64 function (a.k.a.&nbsp;NAT464), any IPv4-originated ICMP-independent
      Path MTU Discovery, as specified in <xref target="RFC4821"/>,
      ceases to be entirely reliable. This is because the DF=1/MF=1
      combination as defined in <xref target="RFC4821"/> results in
      DF=0/MF=1 after a double NAT64 translation.</t>

      <section title="Fragmentation in the MAP Domain">
        <t>Translating an IPv4 packet to carry it across the MAP domain will
        increase its size (typically by 20 bytes). The MTU in the MAP domain
        should be well managed, and the IPv6 MTU on the CE WAN-side interface
        SHOULD be configured so that no fragmentation occurs within the
        boundary of the MAP domain.</t>

        <t>Fragmentation in MAP-T domains SHOULD be handled as described in
        Sections 4 and 5 of <xref target="RFC6145"/>.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Receiving IPv4 Fragments on the MAP Domain Borders">
        <t>The forwarding of an IPv4 packet received from outside of
        the MAP domain requires the IPv4 destination address and the
        transport-protocol destination port. The transport-protocol
        information is only available in the first fragment received.
        As described in Section 5.3.3 of <xref target="RFC6346"/>, a MAP node
        receiving an IPv4 fragmented packet from outside SHOULD reassemble
        the packet before sending the packet onto the MAP domain. If the
        first packet received contains the transport-protocol information,
        it is possible to optimize this behavior by using a cache and
        forwarding the fragments unchanged. A description of such a caching
        algorithm is outside the scope of this document.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Sending IPv4 Fragments to the Outside">
        <t>Two IPv4 hosts behind two different MAP CEs with the same IPv4
        address sending fragments to an IPv4 destination host outside the
        domain may happen to use the same IPv4 fragmentation identifier,
        resulting in incorrect reassembly of the fragments at the destination
        host. Given that the IPv4 fragmentation identifier is a 16-bit field,
        it can be used similarly to port ranges. Thus, a MAP CE SHOULD rewrite
        the IPv4 fragmentation identifier to a value equivalent to a port of
        its allocated port set.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="NAT44 Considerations">
      <t>The NAT44 implemented in the MAP CE SHOULD conform to the behavior
      and best current practices documented in <xref target="RFC4787"/>, <xref
      target="RFC5508"/>, and <xref target="RFC5382"/>. In MAP address-sharing
      mode (determined by the MAP domain&nbsp;/&nbsp;rule configuration
      parameters), the operation of the NAT44 MUST be restricted to the
      available port numbers derived via the Basic Mapping Rule.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Usage Considerations">
      <section title="EA-Bit Length 0">
        <t>The MAP solution supports the use and configuration of domains
        where a BMR expresses an EA-bit length of 0. This results in
        independence between the IPv6 prefix assigned to the CE and the
        IPv4 address and/&wj;or port range used by MAP. The k-bits of PSID
        information may in this case be derived from the BMR.</t>

        <t>The constraint imposed is that each such MAP domain be composed of
        just one MAP CE that has a predetermined IPv6 end-user prefix. The BR
        would be configured with an FMR for each such Customer Premises
        Equipment (CPE), where the rule would uniquely associate the
        IPv4 address + optional PSID and the IPv6 prefix of that given CE.</t>

      </section>

      <section title="Mesh and Hub-and-Spoke Modes">
        <t>The hub-and-spoke mode of communication, whereby all traffic sent
        by a MAP-T CE is forwarded via a BR, and the Mesh mode, whereby a CE
        is directly able to forward traffic to another CE, are governed by the
        activation of Forwarding Mapping Rules that cover the IPv4-prefix
        destination and port-index range. By default, a MAP CE configured
        only with a BMR, as per this specification, will use it to configure
        its IPv4 parameters and IPv6 MAP address without enabling
        Mesh mode.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Communication with IPv6 Servers in the MAP-T Domain">
        <t>By default, MAP-T allows communication between both IPv4-only and
        any IPv6-enabled devices, as well as with native IPv6-only servers,
        provided that the servers are configured with an IPv4-mapped IPv6
        address. This address could be part of the IPv6 prefix used by the DMR
        in the MAP-T domain. Such IPv6 servers (e.g., an HTTP server or a web
        content cache device) are thus able to serve IPv6 users and
        IPv4-only users alike, utilizing IPv6. Any such IPv6-only servers
        SHOULD have both A and AAAA records in DNS. DNS64 <xref
        target="RFC6147"/> will be required only when IPv6 servers in the MAP-T
        domain are themselves expected to initiate communication to external
        IPv4-only hosts.</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Compatibility with Other NAT64 Solutions">
        <t>The MAP-T CE's NAT64 function is by default compatible for use with
        <xref target="RFC6146"/> stateful NAT64 devices that are placed in the
        operator's network. In such a case, the MAP-T CE's DMR prefix is
        configured to correspond to the NAT64 device prefix. This in effect
        allows the use of MAP-T CEs in environments that need to perform
        statistical multiplexing of IPv4 addresses, while utilizing stateful
        NAT64 devices, and can take the role of a customer-side translator
        (CLAT) as defined in <xref target="RFC6877"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t><list style="hanging">
          <t hangText="Spoofing attacks:">With consistency checks between IPv4
          and IPv6 sources that are performed on IPv4/IPv6 packets received by
          MAP nodes, MAP does not introduce any new opportunity for spoofing
          attacks that would not already exist in IPv6.</t>

          <t hangText="Denial-of-service attacks:">In MAP domains where IPv4
          addresses are shared, the fact that IPv4 datagram reassembly may be
          necessary introduces an opportunity for DoS attacks. This is
          inherent in address sharing and is common with other
          address-sharing approaches such as Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)
          and NAT64/DNS64. The best protection against such attacks is to
          accelerate IPv6 support in both clients and servers.</t>

          <t hangText="Routing loop attacks:">Routing loop attacks may
          exist in some "automatic tunneling" scenarios and are documented
          in <xref target="RFC6324"/>. They cannot exist with MAP because
          each BR checks that the IPv6 source address of a received IPv6
          packet is a CE address based on the Forwarding Mapping Rule.</t>

          <t hangText="Attacks facilitated by restricted port set:">From
          hosts that are not subject to ingress filtering <xref
          target="RFC2827"/>, an attacker can inject spoofed packets
          during ongoing transport connections
          <xref target="RFC4953"/> <xref target="RFC5961"/> <xref
          target="RFC6056"/>. The attacks depend on guessing which ports are
          currently used by target hosts. Using an unrestricted port set
          is preferable, i.e., using native IPv6 connections that are not
          subject to MAP port-range restrictions. To minimize these types of
          attacks when using a restricted port set, the MAP CE's NAT44
          filtering behavior SHOULD be "Address-Dependent Filtering" as
          described in Section 5 of <xref target="RFC4787"/>. Furthermore,
          the MAP CEs SHOULD use a DNS transport proxy function to handle
          DNS traffic and source such traffic from IPv6 interfaces not
          assigned to MAP&nbhy;T. Practicalities of these methods are discussed
          in Section 5.9 of <xref target="Stateless-4Via6"/>.</t>

          <t hangText="ICMP Flooding:">Given the necessity to process and
          translate ICMP and ICMPv6 messages by the BR and CE nodes, a
          foreseeable attack vector is that of a flood of such messages
          leading to a saturation of the node's ICMP computing resources. This
          attack vector is not specific to MAP, and its mitigation lies in a
          combination of policing the rate of ICMP messages, policing the rate
          at which such messages can get processed by the MAP nodes, and of
          course identifying and blocking off the source(s) of such
          traffic.</t>
        </list></t>

      <t><xref target="RFC6269"/> outlines general issues with IPv4 address
      sharing.</t>
    </section>

  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title="Normative References">
      &rfc2119;

      &rfc6052;

      &rfc6145;

      &rfc6346;

<!-- draft-ietf-softwire-map (RFC 7597; "n+1" per RFC Ed. Note) -->
<reference anchor='RFC7597' target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597">
<front>
<title>Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)</title>
<author initials='O' surname='Troan' fullname='Ole Troan' role="editor">
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='W' surname='Dec' fullname='Wojciech Dec'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='X' surname='Li' fullname='Xing Li'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='C' surname='Bao' fullname='Congxiao Bao'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='S' surname='Matsushima' fullname='Satoru Matsushima'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='T' surname='Murakami' fullname='Tetsuya Murakami'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='T' surname='Taylor' fullname='Tom Taylor' role="editor">
    <organization />
</author>
<date month='July' year='2015' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7597' />
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7597'/>
</reference>

    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">

<reference anchor='RFC792' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792'>
<front>
<title>Internet Control Message Protocol</title>
<author initials='J.' surname='Postel' fullname='J. Postel'><organization /></author>
<date year='1981' month='September' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='STD' value='5'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='792'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC0792'/>
</reference>

<reference  anchor='RFC879' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc879'>
<front>
<title>The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics</title>
<author initials='J.' surname='Postel' fullname='J. Postel'><organization /></author>
<date year='1983' month='November' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='879'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC0879'/>
</reference>

      &rfc2663;

      &rfc2827;

      &rfc3633;

      &rfc4443;

      &rfc4787;

      &rfc4821;

      &rfc4862;

      &rfc4953;

      &rfc5382;

      &rfc5508;

      &rfc5961;

      &rfc6056;

      &rfc6146;

      &rfc6147;

      &rfc6324;

      &rfc6219;

      &rfc6269;

      &rfc6877;

<!-- draft-dec-stateless-4v6 (Expired) -->
<reference anchor='Stateless-4Via6'>
<front>
<title>Stateless 4Via6 Address Sharing</title>
<author initials='W' surname='Dec' fullname='Wojciech Dec'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='R' surname='Asati' fullname='Rajiv Asati'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='C.' surname='Bao' fullname='Congxiao Bao'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='H' surname='Deng' fullname='Hui Deng'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='M' surname='Boucadair' fullname='Mohamed Boucadair'>
    <organization />
</author>
<date month='October' year='2011' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Work in Progress,' value='draft-dec-stateless-4v6-04' />
</reference>

<!-- draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation (Expired (IESG: Dead)) -->
<reference anchor='Solutions-4v6'>
<front>
<title>Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions</title>
<author initials='M' surname='Boucadair' fullname='Mohamed Boucadair' role="editor">
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='S' surname='Matsushima' fullname='Satoru Matsushima'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='Y' surname='Lee' fullname='Yiu Lee'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='O' surname='Bonness' fullname='Olaf Bonness'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='I' surname='Borges' fullname='Isabel Borges'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='G' surname='Chen' fullname='Gang Chen'>
    <organization />
</author>
<date month='November' year='2012' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Work in Progress,' value='draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05' />
</reference>

<!-- draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp (RFC 7598; "n+2" per RFC Ed. Note) -->
<reference anchor='RFC7598' target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7598">
<front>
<title>DHCPv6 Options for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped Clients</title>
<author initials='T' surname='Mrugalski' fullname='Tomek Mrugalski'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='O' surname='Troan' fullname='Ole Troan'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='I' surname='Farrer' fullname='Ian Farrer'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='S' surname='Perreault' fullname='Simon Perreault'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='W' surname='Dec' fullname='Wojciech Dec'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='C' surname='Bao' fullname='Congxiao Bao'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='L' surname='Yeh' fullname='Leaf Yeh'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='X' surname='Deng' fullname='Xiaohong Deng'>
    <organization />
</author>
<date month='July' year='2015' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='7598' />
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC7598'/>
</reference>

<!-- draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios (Expired) -->
<reference anchor='MAP-T-Use-Cases'>
<front>
<title>Use cases for MAP-T</title>
<author initials='R' surname='Maglione' fullname='Roberta Maglione' role="editor">
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='W' surname='Dec' fullname='Wojciech Dec'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='I' surname='Leung' fullname='Ida Leung'>
    <organization />
</author>
<author initials='E' surname='Mallette' fullname='Edwin Mallette'>
    <organization />
</author>
<date month='October' year='2014' />
</front>
<seriesInfo name='Work in Progress,' value='draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-05' />
</reference>

  <reference anchor="TR069" target="https://www.broadband-forum.org">
     <front>
       <title>CPE WAN Management Protocol</title>
       <author><organization>Broadband Forum TR-069</organization></author>
       <date month="November" year="2013"/>
     </front>
     <seriesInfo name="Amendment 5," value="CWMP Version: 1.4"/>
  </reference>

 </references>

    <section anchor="appendix_a" title="Examples of MAP-T Translation">
      <t><figure>
          <preamble>Example 1 - Basic Mapping Rule:</preamble>

          <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
Given the following MAP domain information and IPv6 end-user prefix
assigned to a MAP CE:

End-user IPv6 prefix:  2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule:    {2001:db8:0000::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                        192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 
                        16 (Rule EA-bit length)}
PSID length:           (16 - (32 - 24) = 8 (sharing ratio of 256)
PSID offset:           6 (default)

A MAP node (CE or BR) can, via the BMR or equivalent FMR, determine
the IPv4 address and port set as shown below:

EA bits offset:        40
IPv4 suffix bits (p):  Length of IPv4 address (32) -
                       IPv4 prefix length (24) = 8
IPv4 address:          192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
PSID start:            40 + p = 40 + 8 = 48
PSID length (q):       o - p = (End-user prefix len - 
                       Rule IPv6 prefix len) - p 
                       = (56 - 40) - 8 = 8
PSID:                  0x34

Available ports (63 ranges): 1232-1235, 2256-2259, ...... ,
                             63696-63699, 64720-64723

The BMR information allows a MAP CE to determine (complete) its
IPv6 address within the indicated End-user IPv6 prefix.

IPv6 address of MAP CE:  2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
  ]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t><figure>
          <preamble>Example 2 - BR:</preamble>

          <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
Another example is a MAP-T BR configured with the following FMR
when receiving a packet with the following characteristics:

IPv4 source address:       10.2.3.4 (0x0a020304)
TCP source port:           80
IPv4 destination address:  192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
TCP destination port:      1232

Forwarding Mapping Rule:   {2001:db8::/40 (Rule IPv6 prefix), 
                            192.0.2.0/24 (Rule IPv4 prefix),
                            16 (Rule EA-bit length)}

MAP-T BR Prefix (DMR):     2001:db8:ffff::/64

The above information allows the BR to derive the mapped destination
IPv6 address for the corresponding MAP-T CE, and also the source
IPv6 address for the mapped IPv4 source address, as follows:

IPv4 suffix bits (p):     32 - 24 = 8 (18 (0x12))
PSID length:              8
PSID:  0                  x34 (1232)

The resulting IPv6 packet will have the following header fields:

IPv6 source address:      2001:db8:ffff:0:000a:0203:0400::
IPv6 destination address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
TCP source port:          80
TCP destination port:     1232

  ]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>

      <t><figure>
          <preamble>Example 3 - FMR:</preamble>

          <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
An IPv4 host behind a MAP-T CE (configured as per the previous
examples) corresponding with IPv4 host 10.2.3.4 will have its
packets converted into IPv6 using the DMR configured on the MAP-T
CE as follows:

Default Mapping Rule:         {2001:db8:ffff::/64 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                               0.0.0.0/0 (Rule IPv4 prefix)}

IPv4 source address:          192.0.2.18
IPv4 destination address:     10.2.3.4
IPv4 source port:             1232
IPv4 destination port:        80
MAP-T CE IPv6 source address: 2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034
IPv6 destination address:     2001:db8:ffff:0:000a:0203:0400::
   
  ]]></artwork>
        </figure><figure>
          <preamble>Example 4 - Rule with no embedded address bits and no
          address sharing:</preamble>

          <artwork><![CDATA[
End-user IPv6 prefix:    2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule:      {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                          192.0.2.1/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 
                          0 (Rule EA-bit length)}
PSID length:             0 (sharing ratio is 1)
PSID offset:             n/a

A MAP node can, via the BMR or equivalent FMR, determine the
IPv4 address and port set as shown below:

EA bits offset:          0
IPv4 suffix bits (p):    Length of IPv4 address -
                         IPv4 prefix length = 32 - 32 = 0
IPv4 address:            192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
PSID start:              0
PSID length:             0
PSID:                    null

The BMR information allows a MAP CE to also determine (complete) its
full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP interface
identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address).

IPv6 address of MAP CE:  2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0201:0000

]]></artwork>
        </figure><figure>
          <preamble>Example 5 - Rule with no embedded address bits and address
          sharing (sharing ratio of 256):</preamble>

          <artwork><![CDATA[
End-user IPv6 prefix:    2001:db8:0012:3400::/56
Basic Mapping Rule:      {2001:db8:0012:3400::/56 (Rule IPv6 prefix),
                          192.0.2.18/32 (Rule IPv4 prefix), 
                          0 (Rule EA-bit length)}
PSID length:             (16 - (32 - 24)) = 8 (sharing ratio of 256;
                         provisioned with DHCPv6)
PSID offset:             6 (default)
PSID:                    0x20 (provisioned with DHCPv6)

A MAP node can, via the BMR, determine the IPv4 address and port set
as shown below:

EA bits offset:          0
IPv4 suffix bits (p):    Length of IPv4 address -
                         IPv4 prefix length = 32 - 32 = 0
IPv4 address             192.0.2.18 (0xc0000212)
PSID start:              0
PSID length:             8
PSID:                    0x34

Available ports (63 ranges): 1232-1235, 2256-2259, ...... ,
                             63696-63699, 64720-64723

The BMR information allows a MAP CE to also determine (complete) its
full IPv6 address by combining the IPv6 prefix with the MAP interface
identifier (that embeds the IPv4 address and PSID).

IPv6 address of MAP CE:  2001:db8:0012:3400:0000:c000:0212:0034

Note that the IPv4 address and PSID are not derived from the IPv6
prefix assigned to the CE but are provisioned separately, using, for 
example, MAP options in DHCPv6.
]]></artwork>
        </figure></t>
    </section>

    <section title="Port-Mapping Algorithm">
      <t>The driving principles and the mathematical expression of the mapping
      algorithm used by MAP can be found in Appendix B of <xref
      target="RFC7597"/>.</t>

      <t/>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgements" numbered="no">
      <t>This document is based on the ideas of many, particularly Remi
      Despres, who has tirelessly worked on generalized mechanisms for
      stateless address mapping.</t>

      <t>The authors would also like to thank Mohamed Boucadair, Guillaume
      Gottard, Dan Wing, Jan Zorz, Nejc Scoberne, Tina Tsou, Gang Chen, Maoke
      Chen, Xiaohong Deng, Jouni Korhonen, Tomek Mrugalski, Jacni Qin, Chunfa
      Sun, Qiong Sun, Leaf Yeh, Andrew Yourtchenko, Roberta Maglione, and
      Hongyu Chen for their review and comments.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Contributors" numbered="no">
      <t>The following individuals authored major contributions to this
      document and made the document possible:</t>

<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
Chongfeng Xie
China Telecom
Room 708, No. 118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing  100035
China
Phone: +86-10-58552116
Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn

Qiong Sun
China Telecom
Room 708, No. 118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing  100035
China
Phone: +86-10-58552936
Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn

Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
7025-6 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
United States
Email: rajiva@cisco.com

Gang Chen
China Mobile
29, Jinrong Avenue
Xicheng District, Beijing  100033
China
Email: phdgang@gmail.com, chengang@chinamobile.com

Wentao Shang
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing  100084
China
Email: wentaoshang@gmail.com

Guoliang Han
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing  100084
China
Email: bupthgl@gmail.com

Yu Zhai
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing  100084
China
Email: jacky.zhai@gmail.com
]]></artwork></figure>
    </section>

  </back>
</rfc>
