One document matched: draft-penno-behave-64-analysis-05.txt
Differences from draft-penno-behave-64-analysis-04.txt
Behavior Engineering for Hindrance R. Penno
Avoidance Juniper Networks
Internet-Draft T. Saxena
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems
Expires: April 21, 2011 M. Boucadair
France Telecom
S. Sivakumar
Cisco Systems
October 18, 2010
Analysis of 64 Translation
draft-penno-behave-64-analysis-05
Abstract
Due to specific problems, NAT-PT was deprecated by the IETF as a
mechanism to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation. Since then, new efforts
have been undertaken within IETF to standardize alternative
mechanisms to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation. This document evaluates
how the new translation mechanisms avoid the problems that caused the
IETF to deprecate NAT-PT.
Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
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
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Analysis of 64 Translation Against Concerns of RFC4966 . . . . 4
2.1. Problems Not Addressed by 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Problems Addressed by 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Problems Addressed by NAT44 Translation Documents . . . . 8
3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
This document uses 64 proposal (or 64 for short) to refer to the
mechanisms defined in the following documents:
o NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients
to IPv4 Servers [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
o DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers [I-D.ietf-behave-dns64]
o IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
o Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]
1.2. Context
The current 64 proposal is widely seen as the next step in the
evolution of interconnection techniques enabling communications
between IPv6-only and IPv4-only networks. One of the building blocks
of this proposal is decoupling the DNS functionality from the
protocol translation itself.
This approach is pragmatic in the sense that there is no dependency
on DNS implementation for the successful NAT handling. As long as
there is a function (e.g., DNS64 [I-D.ietf-behave-dns64] or other
means) that can construct an IPv6-Embedded IPv4 address with a pre-
configured IPv6 prefix, an IPv4 address and a suffix (refer to
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]), NAT64 will work just fine.
To understand the 64 proposal, we must keep in mind that the focus of
this proposal is on the deployment and not the implementation
details. As long as a NAT64 implementation conforms to the expected
behaviour, as desired in the deployment scenario, the details are not
very important as mentioned in this excerpt from
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]:
"A NAT64 MAY perform the steps in a different order, or MAY perform
different steps, but the externally visible outcome MUST be the same
as the one described in this document."
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
1.3. Scope
This document provides an analysis of how the proposed set of
documents that specify stateful IPv6-only to IPv4-only translation
and replace NAT-PT [RFC2766] address the issues raised in [RFC4966].
As a reminder, it is worth mentioning the 64 proposal analysis is
limited in the sense that hosts from IPv6 networks can initiate a
communication to IPv4 network/Internet, but not vice-versa. This
corresponds to Scenario 1 and Scenario 5 described in
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]. Hence, the scenario of servers
moving to IPv6 while clients remaining IPv4 remains unaddressed.
The 64 proposal, just like any other technology under development,
has some positives and some drawbacks. The ups and downs of the
proposal must be clearly understood while going forward with its
future development.
The scope of this document does not include stateless translation.
[[Discussion Note: Is it in scope of this document to propose some
recommendations?]]
2. Analysis of 64 Translation Against Concerns of RFC4966
Of the set of problems pointed out in [RFC4966], the 64 proposal
addresses some of them, whereas leaves others unaddressed. It is
also worth pointing out that the scope of the 64 proposal is reduced
when compared to NAT-PT. Following is a point by point analysis of
the problems.
2.1. Problems Not Addressed by 64
Problems discussed in [RFC4966], which are not addressed by the 64
proposal:
1. Disruption of all protocols that embed IP addresses (and/or
ports) in packet payloads or apply integrity mechanisms using IP
addresses (and ports).
Analysis: In the case of FTP [RFC0959] this problem is
addressed by the use of a FTP64 ALG [I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64]
which is a workaround solution. In the case of SIP
[RFC3261], no specific issue is induced by 64; the same
techniques for NAT traversal can be used when a NAT64 is
involved in the path (e.g., ICE [RFC5245], Hosted NAT
Traversal [RFC5853], embedded SIP ALGs, etc. ). The
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
functioning of other protocols is left unaddressed. Note
that the traversal of NAT64 by application embedding IP
address literal is not specific to NAT64 but generic to all
NAT-based solutions.
2. Inability to redirect traffic for protocols that lack de-
multiplexing capabilities or are not built on top of specific
transport-layer protocols for transport address translations.
Analysis: This issue is not specific to 64 but to all NAT-
based solutions.
3. Loss of information due to incompatible semantics between IPv4
and IPv6 versions of headers and protocols.
Analysis: This issue is not specific to 64 but due to the
design of IPv4 and IPv6.
4. Need for additional state and/or packet reconstruction in
dealing with packet fragmentation. Otherwise, implement no
support for fragments.
Analysis: This issue is not specific to 64 but to all NAT-
based solutions. [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
specifies how to handle fragmentation; appropriate
recommendations to avoid fragmentation-related DoS attacks
are proposed (e.g., limit resources to be dedicated to out of
order fragments).
5. Interaction with SCTP [RFC2960] and multihoming.
Analysis: SCTP is out of scope of 64. Only TCP and UDP
transport protocols are within the scope of 64.
6. Need for the NAT64-capable device to act as proxy for
correspondent node when IPv6 node is mobile, with consequent
restrictions on mobility.
Analysis: This is not specific to NAT64 but to all NAT
flavors. Refer to [I-D.haddad-mext-nat64-mobility-harmful]
for an early analysis on mobility complications encountered
when NAT64 is involved.
7. Inability to handle multicast traffic.
Analysis: This problem is not addressed by the current 64
specifications.
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
8. Scalability concerns together with introduction of a single
point of failure and a security attack nexus.
Analysis: This is not specific to NAT64 but to all stateful
NAT flavors.
9. Creation of a DoS (Denial of Service) threat relating to
exhaustion of memory and address/port pool resources on the
translator.
Analysis: This specific DoS concern on Page 6 of [RFC4966] is
under a DNS-ALG heading in that document, and refers to NAT-
PT's creation of NAT mapping state when a DNS query occurred.
With the new IPv6-IPv4 translation mechanisms, DNS queries do
not create any mapping state. Thus, this concern is fully
eliminated with the new IPv6-IPv4 translation mechanisms.
10. Restricted validity of translated DNS records: a translated
record may be forwarded to an application that cannot use it.
Analysis: If a node on the IPv4 side forwards the address of
the other endpoint to a node which cannot reach the NAT box
or is not covered under the endpoint-independent constraint
of NAT, then the new node will not be able to initiate a
successful session.
Actually, this is not a limitation of 64 (or even NAT-PT) but
a deployment context where shared IPv4 addresses managed by
the NAT64 are not globally reachable. The same limitation
can be encountered when referrals (even without any NAT in
the path) include reachability information with limited
reachability scope (See
[I-D.carpenter-behave-referral-object] for more discussion
about scope-related issues).
11. Unless UDP encapsulation is used for IPsec [RFC3948], traffic
using IPsec AH (Authentication Header), in transport and tunnel
mode, and IPsec ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload), in
transport mode, is unable to be carried through NAT-PT without
terminating the security associations on the NAT-PT, due to
their usage of cryptographic integrity protection.
Analysis: This is not specific to NAT64 but to all NAT
flavours.
12. Address selection issues when either the internal or external
hosts implement both IPv4 and IPv6.
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
Analysis: This is out of scope of 64 since Scenarios 1 and 5
of [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework] assume IPv6-only hosts.
Therefore this issue is not resolved and mitigation
techniques outside the 64 need to be used. These techniques
may allow to offload NAT64 resources and prefer native
communications which do not involve address family
translation. Avoiding NAT devices in the path is encouraged
for mobile nodes in order to save power consumption due to
keepalive messages which are required to maintain NAT states
("always-on" services). An in-depth discussion can be found
in [I-D.wing-behave-dns64-config].
2.2. Problems Addressed by 64
Problems, identified in [RFC4966], which are adequately addressed by
the 64 proposal:
1. Constraints on network topology (as it relates to DNS-ALG; see
Section 3.1 of [RFC4966]).
Analysis: This issue has mitigated severity as the DNS is
separated from the NAT functionality. Nevertheless, a minimal
coordination may be required to ensure that the NAT64 to be
crossed (the one to which the IPv4-Converted IPv6 address
returned to a requesting host) must be in the path and has
also sufficient resources to handle received traffic.
2. Inappropriate translation of responses to A queries from IPv6
nodes.
Analysis: DNS64 does not resolve A queries since 64 assume
IPv6-only hosts, therefore due to the reduced scope this
concern is resolved.
3. Address selection issues and resource consumption in a DNS-ALG
with multi-addressed nodes.
Analysis: Since the DNS-ALG is not there and communications
initiated from the IPv4 side are not supported, there is no
need to maintain temporary states in anticipation of
connections.
4. Limitations on DNS security capabilities when using a DNS-ALG.
Analysis: A DNSSEC validating stub resolver behind a DNS64 in
server mode is not supported. Therefore if a host wants to do
its own DNSSEC validation, and it wants to use a NAT64, the
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
host has to also perform its own DNS64 synthesis.
5. Creation of a DoS (Denial of Service) threat relating to
exhaustion of memory and address/port pool resources on the
translator.
Analysis: This specific DoS concern on Page 6 of [RFC4966] is
under a DNS-ALG heading in that document, and refers to NAT-
PT's creation of NAT mapping state when a DNS query occurred.
With the new IPv6-IPv4 translation mechanisms, DNS queries do
not create any mapping state in the NAT64. Thus, this concern
is fully eliminated in 64.
2.3. Problems Addressed by NAT44 Translation Documents
Some issues mentioned in RFC4966 were solved by RFC 4787 [RFC4787],
RFC 5382 [RFC5382] and RFC 5508 [RFC5508]. At the time when NAT-PT
was published these recommendations were not in place but they are
orthogonal to the translation algorithm per se, therefore they could
be implemented with NAT-PT. On the other hand, NAT64 explicitly
mentions that these recommendations need to be followed and thus
should be seen as a complete specification.
1. Requirement for applications to use keepalive mechanisms to
workaround connectivity issues caused by premature timeout for
session table and BIB entries.
Analysis: Since NAT64 follows some of the [RFC4787], [RFC5382]
and [RFC5508] requirements, there is a high lower bound for
the lifetime of sessions. In NAT-PT this was unknown and
applications needed to assume the worst case. For instance,
in NAT64, the lifetime for a TCP session is approximately 2
hours, so not much keep-alive signalling overhead is needed.
Application clients (e.g., VPN clients) are not aware of the
timer configured in the NAT device. For unmanaged services, a
conservative approach would be adopted by applications which
issue frequent keepalive messages to be sure that an active
mapping is still be maintained by any involved NAT64 device
even if the NAT64 complies with BEHAVE WG specifications.
Note that keepalive messages may be issued by applications to
ensure that an active entry is maintained by a firewall, with
or without a NAT in the path, which is located in the
boundaries of a local domain.
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
2. Lack of address mapping persistence: Some applications require
address retention between sessions. The user traffic will be
disrupted if a different mapping is used. The use of the DNS-
ALG to create address mappings with limited lifetimes means that
applications must start using the address shortly after the
mapping is created, as well as keep it alive once they start
using it.
Analysis: In the context of 64, the external IPv4 address
(representing the IPv6 host in the IPv4 network) is assigned
by the NAT64 machinery and not the DNS64 function. Address
persistence can be therefore easily ensured by the NAT64
function (which complies with most of BEHAVE NAT
recommendations.). Address persistence should be guaranteed
for both dynamic and static bindings.
In the IPv6 side of the NAT64, the same IPv6 address is used
to represent an IPv4 host; no issue about address persistence
is raised in IPv6 network.
3. Conclusions
The above analysis of the solutions provided by the 64 proposal shows
that the majority of the problems that are not directly related to
the decoupling of NAT and DNS remain unaddressed. Some of these
problems are not specific to 64 but are generic to all NAT-based
solutions.
This points to several shortcomings of 64 proposal which must be
addressed if the future network deployments have to move reliably
towards 64 as a solution to IPv6-IPv4 interconnection.
Some of the issues, as pointed out in [RFC4966], have possible
solutions. However these solutions will require significant updates
to the 64 proposal, increasing its complexity.
The following table summarizes the conclusions based on the analysis
of 64 proposal.
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Issue | NAT-PT | Exists | DNS ALG | Generic | Can be |
| | Specific | in | Specific | NAT | solved? |
| | | NAT64 | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Protocols | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| embedding | | | | | |
| addresses | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Protocols | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| without demux | | | | | |
| capability | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Binding state | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| decay | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Loss of | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| information | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Fragmentation | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| SCTP and | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Multihoming | | | | | |
| interaction | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Proxy corresp | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ?? |
| node for | | | | | |
| MIPv6 | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Multicast | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Topology | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| constraints | | | | | |
| with DNS-ALG | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Scale and | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Single point | | | | | |
| of failure | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Lack of | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| address | | | | | |
| persistence | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| DoS attacks | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Address | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| selection | | | | | |
| issues with | | | | | |
| Dual stack | | | | | |
| hosts | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Non-global | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| validity of | | | | | |
| Translated RR | | | | | |
| records | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| Incorrect | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| translation | | | | | |
| of A | | | | | |
| responses | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| DNS-ALG and | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Multi- | | | | | |
| addressed | | | | | |
| nodes | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
| DNSSEC | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| limitations | | | | | |
+---------------+----------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
Table 1: Summary of NAT64 analysis
4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not specify any new protocol or architecture. It
only analyses how BEHAVE WG 64 documents mitigate concerns raised in
[RFC4966] and which ones are still unaddressed.
6. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Marcelo Bagnulo for his comments.
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol",
STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address
Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766,
February 2000.
[RFC2960] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M.,
Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.
[RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
RFC 4787, January 2007.
[RFC4966] Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move the Network
Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to
Historic Status", RFC 4966, July 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.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.carpenter-behave-referral-object]
Carpenter, B., Boucadair, M., Halpern, J., Jiang, S., and
K. Moore, "A Generic Referral Object for Internet
Entities", draft-carpenter-behave-referral-object-01 (work
in progress), October 2009.
[I-D.haddad-mext-nat64-mobility-harmful]
Haddad, W. and C. Perkins, "A Note on NAT64 Interaction
with Mobile IPv6",
draft-haddad-mext-nat64-mobility-harmful-01 (work in
progress), April 2010.
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10 (work in progress),
August 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-dns64]
Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum,
"DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation
from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers",
draft-ietf-behave-dns64-11 (work in progress),
October 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64]
Beijnum, I., "An FTP ALG for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation",
draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-05 (work in progress),
September 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]
Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation",
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10 (work in progress),
August 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers",
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 (work in
progress), July 2010.
[I-D.venaas-behave-v4v6mc-framework]
Venaas, S., Li, X., and C. Bao, "Framework for IPv4/IPv6
Multicast Translation",
draft-venaas-behave-v4v6mc-framework-01 (work in
progress), October 2009.
[I-D.wing-behave-dns64-config]
Wing, D., "DNS64 Resolvers and Dual-Stack Hosts",
draft-wing-behave-dns64-config-02 (work in progress),
February 2010.
[I-D.wing-softwire-port-control-protocol]
Wing, D., Penno, R., and M. Boucadair, "Pinhole Control
Protocol (PCP)",
draft-wing-softwire-port-control-protocol-02 (work in
progress), July 2010.
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002.
[RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and M.
Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec ESP Packets",
RFC 3948, January 2005.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
April 2010.
[RFC5853] Hautakorpi, J., Camarillo, G., Penfield, R., Hawrylyshen,
A., and M. Bhatia, "Requirements from Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) Session Border Control (SBC) Deployments",
RFC 5853, April 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Reinaldo Penno
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, California 94089
USA
Email: rpenno@juniper.net
Tarun Saxena
Cisco Systems
Email: tasaxena@cisco.com
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Analysis of 64 Translation October 2010
Senthil Sivakumar
Cisco Systems
7100-8 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
USA
Email: ssenthil@cisco.com
Penno, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 15]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:44:57 |