Int. J. Communications, Network and System Sciences, 2015, 8, 62-69 Published Online April 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijcns http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijcns.2015.84008 How to cite this paper: Mi, W. and Zhang, X.D. (2015) The Applicability Analysis of IPv6 Translation Transition Mechanisms. Int. J. Communications, Network and System Sciences, 8, 62-69. h ttp://dx.d oi.org/10.4236/ ijcns.2015.84008 The Applicability Analysis of IPv6 Translation Transition Mechanisms Wei Mi, Xiaodan Zhang Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China Email: miwei@cstnet.cn, zhangxiaodan@cstnet.cn Received March 2015 Abstract Due to the exhaustion of IPv4 address resources, the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is inevi table and fairly urgent. Numerous tra n si tion mechanisms have been proposed to solve challenging issues of IPv6 transition. An inter-c on n ec ti on betwee n IPv4 and IPv6 networks or hosts requirement has been happening throughout the IPv6 tran si t i on process. And one -ti me translation scheme is in- dispensable to achieve the in ter -connecti on. In addition, double translation can be used in the IPv4-IPv6-IPv4 s cenario. As a long-term strategy, tran s lat i on scheme is important an d ine vit ab le. However, becaus e of the diverse characteristics and transition requirements of practical networks and the lack of applicability an aly sis, th e selection and deploymen t of transition mechanisms are facing with gran d challenges. Targeting at those challenge s, th i s paper investi ga tes th e basic issues and key elements of IPv6 translation transition mechanisms, and presents its first appli cability index system. In particular, we analy ze the applicab ility of existing proposed translation tech- niques based on the pre sent ed in dex system, which has significant guidance in the practical dep- loyment of IPv6 transition techniq ues. Keywords IPv6 Transition, Translation Mechanisms, Applicability, Index System 1. Introduction With the rapid growth of Internet scale, the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses is a significant problem. IPv6 was de- signed to be an evolutionary step from IPv4, overcoming the problems of IPv4 and promoting the development of Next Generatio n In t ern e t. Due to th e incompatibilit y in nature, IPv 6 transitio n will face many techn ical chal- lenges, such as heterogeneous addressing, different semantic, routing isolation, huge size and the transparent to users and to app lications . I Pv6 transition is a world recognized significant technology problem in the develop- ment of Nex t Ge neration Internet. During the process of IPv6 trans ition, no matter whic h network protocol is used, it must support both I Pv4 services and IP v6 s ervices, and ensure the transparence to the upper layer applications. The character istics and transition requirements of practical networks are diverse and complex. Theoretically, the IPv6 transition scena- rios can be decomposed into two types: inter-connection (IPv4-IPv6) and heterogeneous traversing (IPv6-IPv4- IPv6 or IPv4-IPv6-IPv4). An inter-connection happens when networks or hosts using different address families
W. Mi, X. D. Zhang are directly connected and want to communicate. A traversing happens when two or more native IPv4/IPv6 networks (or hosts) are separated by a network which uses the other address family and thereby is not IPv4/ IPv6-capable. Numerous transition mechanisms have been proposed to solve challenging issues of IPv6 transition, which can be divided into dual-stack, tunnel, and translation me chanisms. Dual -stack mechanisms can support both IPv4 and IPv 6, bu t they bring the high cost on both the hardware upgrading and ne twork o peration/management. Tunnel mechanisms possess the merits of expansibility, flexibility and simplified achievement. And the Softwire Working Grou p of IETF is focusing on developing and standardizing the tunnel mechanisms. However, tunnel scheme cannot resolve the inter-connection problem which has been happening throughout the IPv6 transition process. Compared with dual-stack and tunnel, translation can be used to achieve direct communication between IPv4 and IPv6. After development these years, translation technology has already formed its own one more complete system which had been developed and standardized in the Behave Working Group of IETF. As a long-term strategy, trans lation scheme is important and inevitable. In practical deployment, it is important to find feasible trans ition mechanisms and make approp ria te plan to cover all potential communication scenarios. Howeve r, it brings great challenges to the research community of IPv6 transition. W ith the diverse characteristics and transition requirements of practical networks and the lack of overall transition architecture, the selection and deployment of IPv6 transition mechanisms are very difficult. Thus, there is a strong need to take the research on the applicability of transition mechanisms. However, the ap- plicability criterion and analysis are lack in the current literature review. In an effort to push forward the IPv6 transition process, this paper deeply discusses the basic issues and key elements of IPv6 translation mechanisms, and presents the first applicability index system and analyzes the ap- plicability of existing translation techn ique s. All of th e se have guiding significantly in the IPv6 tran sition process. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the related work. The applicability index system and the applicability analysis of mainstream IPv6 translation mechanisms are shown in Section 3 and 4. Finally, Section 5 concludes this study. 2. Related Work Numerous stud ies on the evaluation of IPv6 transition mechanisms have been reported in the current literature. Shin et al. [1] showed the impact of IPv6 transition mechanisms on user applications. Law et al. in [2] focu sed on the performance of dual-stack technologies in terms of various network metrics including network connec- tivity, hop-count, RTT, throug hpu t, operating systems dependencies and the address configuration latency. The authors in [3] [4] provided the evaluation of tunnel mechanisms with the key performance-related metrics in- cluding throughput, delay, jitter, and the CPU usage of transition nodes. AlJa’afreh et al. [5] gave the compa- rison between the tunneling process and mapping schemes for IPv4/IPv6 transition using en d -to-end delay and throughput as the key performance metrics. Guer i n and Hosanagar [6] adopted a simple model to illustrate how the connectivity quality affects both IPv6 adoption and the volume of translation traffic, and summarize their implications for IPv6 adoption. The authors in [7] evaluated the dual-stack protocol and tunneling transition based on the metrics of throughput and round-trip delay. Several studies [8]-[11] presented the comparisons of translation mechanisms with the aspects of operation complexity and scalability, real-time communications, field device, multicast address, and application-layer protocol. The authors in [8] proposed the evaluation of the transition mechanisms including the estimation on the scalability, heterogeneous addressing and application- layer translation, hardware cost, performance and capacity of the equipment, security, end-to-end property, and the influence for developing applications. Compared with existing studies, in [12], we also provided unified assessment criterion in terms of functiona- lity, applications, performance, development and secur ity to evaluate the mainstream transition mechanisms. The unified evaluation criter ion is sh o w n in Table 1. 3. The Applicability Index System 3.1. Basic Problems Translation scheme is used to achieve direct communication between IPv4 and IPv6 networks (or hosts). Its ba- sic operation is to co n vert the s emantics between IPv4 and IPv6, turning IPv4 packet into IPv 6 if the packet is
W. Mi, X. D. Zhang Table 1. The evaluation criterion of IPv6 transition mechanisms. Evaluation criterion Description Functionality Including the transition scenario, transition function, equipment requirements, and IPv4 and IPv6 address requirements. Applications The impact on IPv4 or IPv6 application. Performance The performance evaluation is mainly for the equipments, such as forwarding performance, and the searching, storage, and computational overhead. Deployment Including the implementation cost, and the ease of management and usage. Security Including the security issues and concerns. destined to IPv6 network, or turning IPv6 packet into IPv4 if th e packet is destin ed to IPv4 network. The basic data operation IPv4-IPv6 packet translation is the basic data plane operation. It involves network, transport, and application layer. Thus, the basic operations include addre ss and port conversion, IP/TCP/UDP protocol field translation, and application layer translation (addr es s and po r t conversion when they appe ar in application protocol). What is more, to overcome further diversities in the protocol definition between IPv4 and IPv6, translation has to take care of issues like fragmentation and reassembling, path MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) discov er y, ICMP, etc. The basic control operation The basic control plane operation is the address conversion rule: either some special address scheme needs to be deployed in advance, or dynamic address bindings have to be built during the translation. Heterogeneous ad- dressing (learning the in-protocol address of the remote end) and corr espond ing routing should be performed based on the address conver sio n ru le . The translation model According to the applicable scenarios, the models of IPv6 translation mechanisms are divided into ap p lica- tion-side, network -side and ho s t-side translation. Accor ding to the address conversion mann er, we can a l so di- vide network-side tr anslatio n mechanisms into stateless tr anslatio n and stateful trans lation. 3.2. Key Elements Transition equipment In translation technologies, the translator is the transitio n equipments. Usually, network-side translation hap- pens on the IPv4-IPv6 border, so the tr anslator would be an AFBR (Address Family Border Router). And host-side translation happens in the TCP/IP stack of the end host, so the transla tor would be host. They s hould support address and port conversion, IP/TCP/UDP protocol field translation and also maintain the state. Thus, translator has requirements in the use of bandwidth, computing and finding, storage. Address tr anslation Using specific addres s conver sion ru le s , the translator either gets I Pv4 a ddre ss fr o m a specific position of IPv6 address, or builds the IPv6 addr ess using IPv4 address . The address conversion rule includes some special address sch eme needs to be deployed in advance, and dynamic address bindings have to be built during the translation. Other fields translation Except the source address and destination address, there are other fields (fragmentation ID, checksum, ban- fragmentation flag, etc.) in IP/ICMP packets, wh ic h ca rry sp ecif ic information. In the IPv4-IPv6 translation process, the header information of IPv4 packet cannot be lost. Therefore, translation techniques are required to ensure the integrity of IPv4 inf ormatio n . State maintenance In IPv6 transition, the state is available to only represent a series of attributes mapping relationship among a communication entity (such as client, server), a communication path (the connection between communication entities), or a communication process (control flow an d data flow). The IP address in network layer and ID in transport layer of the communication entities are the core state which need translation techn iqu es to maintain.
W. Mi, X. D. Zhang DNS64 and DNS46 The main function of DNS64 and DNS46 is to realize the bi-directional translation between A and AAAA record. DN S6 4 translates the AAAA query from IPv6 hosts into A query when r eceivin g one, and DNS46 translates the A response for IPv6 hosts into AAAA response following the IPv4-mapped address rul e before sending one out. The re are usually two kinds of implementations: static configu ra tion DNS records and dynamic translation. Application layer translation Those applicatio ns whose addres s and port co nv ersion w hen they appear in application protocol cannot work in NAT and IPv4/IPv6 translation environments. Such as FTP, SIP, etc. One solution is assist applications to realize translation work by using the application layer gateway. 3.3. Applicability Index System Based on the analysis of basic problems and key elements, we built the first applicability index system in ter ms of sustainable, applications, performance and development to evaluate all IPv6 translation transition mechan- isms. The applicability index system is shown in Table 2. 4. The Applicability Analysis In the all stages of transition from IPv4 to IPv6, IPv4 networks/hosts and IPv6 networks/hosts are likely to coexist. For the operators, supporting inter-connection is inevitable. One-time tr ans lation mechanisms emerged as required. Table 2. The applicability index system. Applicability criterion Description Sustainable Scenarios and function of transition Whether meet the needs of transitional scenario. The coupling degree between IPv4 address and IPv6 address. The reuse rate of IPv4 addresses resource. Whether promote the deployment and usage of IPv6. The support degree of business application. The support degree of IPv4 application. End-to-end property. Impact on the IPv4 business application. The support degree of IPv6 application. Impact on the IPv6 business application. Performance The performance requirement of translator The routing information announcement The capacity of bandwidth, computing and finding, storage. The space and time overhead of state maintenance Routing scalability The aggregation of IPv6 addresses Impact on the scope of deployment. Robustness The capacity of redundancy backup. The cost of development Technological and industry maturity The support degree of IETF The support degree of standard Update cost Impact on application layer. The impact on the present network. Impact on network layer. Impact on end users layer. The cost of operation, management and maintenance Configuration It impact on operator. Maintenance Troubleshooting Security Including the security issues and concerns. The security of translation mechanisms.
W. Mi, X. D. Zhang With the IPv6 development, IPv4 Internet has been gradual ly replaced. For the low cost, network operators tend to bu ild IP v6 n e two rk rather than dual-stack n etwor k. In ord er to ensu re the compatibility of legacy IPv4 application, IPv4-IPv6-IPv4 double translation scheme is provided. According to the different transition stages, this paper will analyze the applicability of one-time translation mechanisms in the all stages and dou b le translatio n mechanisms in the middle- to-late-stage. 4.1. The Applicability Analysis of One-Time Translation Mechanisms IETF h as developed and standardized many one-time translation transition mechanisms, such as network-side translation mechanisms whi ch can be divided i nto stateless tra nslation (SIIT [13], IVI [14]) and stateful transl a- tion (NAT-PT [15], NAT64 [16]), and host-side translation mechanisms (BIH [17]). In this section, we will analyze the applicability of these mechanisms, which is summarized in Table 3. SIIT is an early stateless tr a ns lation mechanism. It does not introduce new security issues to the network. However, the usage of fixed address prefix brings significant routing scalability problem. Due to the per-host IPv4 address consumption requirement, the IPv6 side of SIIT cannot be huge which is unfavorable to IPv6 tran- sition. Therefore, SIIT apply to the early-stage of IPv6 transition. IVI follows the principle of stateless translation and improves SIIT. The use of NSP (network-specific, varia- ble prefix) makes the rou ting sca lability is no longer a concern. However, the per-host IPv4 ad dress consump- tion is still required in IVI. Therefore, the IPv6 side cannot be huge and IVI also apply to the early-stag e of IPv6 transition. NAT-PT is originally adopted to achieve the heterogeneous addressing procedure for both sides with DNS- ALG on th e trans lator. However, it possesses several technical issues, e.g., the d isruption of en d -to-end transp a- rency, information loss and misunderstanding of DNS-ALG, low scalability of network topology caused by the deep-coupling between DNS-ALG an d translator, and the inability to redirect traffic with persistence address- mapping state. As an enhan ced mechanism, NAT64 extracts the DNS-ALG function fro m the translator and makes it become a dedicated DNS64 server. However, NAT64 only specifies the communication initiated from the IPv6 side. It also destroys the end-to-end transparency. NAT-PT and NAT64 have DoS attack on the binding table, with in- gress filtering on the IPv6 s ide as th e solution. In the host-side translation mechanisms, the translation is inside the TCP/IP stack of the host, which may re- duce the deployment overhead of network. However, due to the scale of terminal hosts is much larger than the device in th e network side, it will bring a great pressure to ISP and be unfavorab le to I Pv6 transition. 4.2. The Applicability Analysis of Double Translation Mechanisms At present, IETF has been developing and standardizing double translation transition mechanisms. The main- stream mechanisms include 464XLAT [18], d IV I [19] and MAP-T [2 0 ]. The applicability analys is of thes e me- chanisms is provided and summarized in Table 4. 464XLAT suppor ts an IPv4 host (especially mobile host) to connect to the IPv4 Internet throug h the IPv6 network. Due to the combination of SIIT on th e user sid e and NAT64 on the carrier side, 464XLAT faces the issues in both SIIT and NAT64. As an extension of IVI, dIVI is a stateless net wo rk -sid e transla tion in wh ich one IPv4 address is shared by multiple IPv6 hosts through port space division. However, dIVI cannot realize the inter-connection between two IPv4 hosts insider the two dIVI network separately. In MAP-T, the I Pv6 packets have to use the I Pv4-mapped addresses as source addresses in the inbou nd dir ec- tion and destination addresses in the outbound direction. However, since the mechanism deeply couples IPv4 and IPv6 addres sin g, it becomes a little less flexible to deplo y: the deployment has to be entire-network style rather than on demand style, otherw ise some of the coup led IP v4 addresses will be wasted. 5. Conclusion For the consideration of deployment scenarios and addres s format, numerous translation transition mechanisms have been proposed in IETF. However, due to a wide range of mechanisms and a lot of overla p a nd similar
W. Mi, X. D. Zhang Table 3. The applicability analysis of one-time translation mechanisms. Applicability SIIT IVI NAT-PT NAT64 BIH (BIS/BIA) Sustainable Scenarios and function of transition The inter-connection between IPv6 network and IPv4 network/Internet The connection from IPv6 network/Internet to IPv4 network/Internet. The connection from IPv6 network/Internet to IPv4 network, and from IPv6 network to IPv4 Internet. An IPv4 application on the end host connect to an IPv6 remote end. Coupling degree between IPv4 address and IPv6 address. High by stateless address mapping. Medium . Low. Reuse rate of IPv4 addresses resource. Low High by stateful address + port binding low The support degree of business application. Support degree of IPv4 application. High Low by destroying the end-to-end transparency Low in BIS, high in BIA. Support degree of IPv6 application Low High Performance Performance requirement of translator The routing information announcement It should advertise prefixes of: ffff:0:0/96 to IPv6 side and the IPv4-translated address to IPv4 side. It advertise the prefix of IPv4 addresses owned by IPv6 hosts to IPv4 side and the NSP route to IPv6 side. It should advertise the prefix of IPv4 address pool to IPv4 side, as well as the IPv6 prefix of: 96 to IPv6 side. It should advertise the prefix of 64: FF9B: /96 to IPv6 side, and the prefix of the IPv4 address pool to IPv4 side. No impact. The space and time overhead of state maintenance low High. Per-flow-state maintenance. High in BIS, low in BIA. Routing scalability ggregation of IPv6 addresses) Low by using the fixed prefix. High by using NSP. No impact. Robustness High Low The cost of development Technological and industry maturity RFC 2765 RFC 6219 IETF had discarded it. RFC 6146 RFC 6535 Impact on application layer. No impact. Network gateway should support NAT-ALG. No impact. the translation on the socket Impact on network layer. Network gateway should support the SIIT. Network gateway should support the IVI. Network gateway support NAT, NAPT, NAT-ALG. The scalability of network topology is low. Network gateway should support NAT64. DNS64 server should be deployed. No impact. Impact on end users layer. No impact Translation inside the TCP/IP stack of the host Configuration Medium High Maintenance Low High High Troubleshooting High Low Low Security The security issues and concerns. SIIT and IVI do not introduce new security issues to the network. DoS attack on the binding table. And ingress filtering on the IPv6 side as the solution. DoS attack.
W. Mi, X. D. Zhang Table 4. The applicability analysis of double translation mechanisms. Applicability 464XLAT dIVI MAP-T Sustainable Scenarios and function of transition IPv4 mobile host- IPv6 network-IPv4 Internet. IPv4 host-IPv6 network-IPv4 Internet. IPv4 network-IPv6 network-IPv4 network/Internet Coupling degree between IPv4 address and IPv6 address. High Reuse rate of IPv4 addresses resource. High The support degree of business application. Support degree of IPv4 application. High Support degree of IPv6 application Low Performance Performance requirement of translator The routing information announcement Smilar with SIIT and NAT64 Smilar with IVI No need. The space and time overhead of state maintenance Low in CLAT, high in PLAT Low Low space and high time overhead. Routing scalability (Aggregation of IPv6 addresses) Low High low Robustness High The cost of development Technological and industry maturity RFC 6877 IRTF draft (work in progress) Impact on application layer. No impact. Impact on network layer. Network gateway should support PLAT Network gateway should support IVI Network gateway should support MAP-T CE and BR Impact on end users layer. Host equipment should support CLAT No impact Configuration High Medium Maintenance Medium Low Troubleshooting High in CLAT, low in PLAT High Security The security issues and concerns. DoS attack on the binding table of PLAT. It dose not introduce new security issues Traffic hijacking could happen by man -in-the-middle attack on DHCPv6 which provisions the rules. functions, no one translation mechanism can be used in all transition scenarios. This paper has provided the first applicability index system, and highlighted the applicability of all IPv6 trans lation mechanisms to help the oper- ators decide on the development scheme for th eir IPv 6 transition . We can observe from the applicability analysis that 1) n et wo rk -side tran slation leads less overhead to ISP than host-side translation, an d the mainstream of tra nslation techniques is n e two rk-s ide tr anslation ; 2) stateless network -side translation requires voraciou s consumption of IPv4 addresses , while stateful translation requires per-flow state maintenance, and both are not suitable for large scale networks; 3) Among the network-side translation mechanisms, IVI is a feasible stateless tr ans lation mechanism, and NAT6 4 is a feasible stateful translation mechanism; 4) 464XLAT is able to resolve the heterogeneous traversing problem of IPv4 mobile host to IPv4 Internet, and MAP -T is more applicable to the heterogeneous traversing between IPv4 networ ks. Acknowledgements We are grateful for Jinggu o Ge fro m the Computer Network Information Center of Chin ese Academy of
W. Mi, X. D. Zhang Sciences, who gave us kind encouragement and useful instruction s all through o ur wr iting. Furthermore, this work is supported by the National High-tech R&D Program of China (863 Program) under Grant No. 2011AA01A101; the National Key Technology Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China under Grant No.2012BAH01B00; the Nationa l Program on Key Basic Re- search Project of China (973 Program) under Grant No. 2012CB315800; the Strategic Priority Research Pro- gram of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under grant No. XDA06010201. References [1] AlJa’afreh, R., Mellor, J. and Awan, I. (2009) A Comparison between the Tunneling Process and Mapping Schemes for IPv4/IPv6 Transition. International Conference on WAINA’09, IEEE Press, Bradford, 601-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WAINA.2009.209 [2] Law, Y.N., Lai, M.C., Tan, W.L. and Lau, W.C. (2008) Empirical Performance of IPv6 vs. IPv4 under a Dual-Stack Environment. IEEE International Conference on ICC’08, IEEE Press, Beijing, 5924-5929. [3] Aazam, M., Syed, A.M., Khan, I. and Alam, M. (2011) Evaluation of 6to4 and ISATAP on a Test LAN. IEEE Sympo- sium on ISCI, IEEE Press, Kuala Lumpur, 46-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISCI.2011.5958881 [4] Gilligan, R. and Nordmark, E. (1996) Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers. IETF RFC 1933. [5] Guerin, R. and Hosanagar, K. (2010) Fo st e r ing IPv6 Migration through Network Quality Differentials. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 40, 17-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1823844.1823847 [6] Wu, Y. and Zhou, X. (2011) Research on the IPv6 Performance Analysis Based on Dual-Protocol Stack and Tunnel Transition. 6th International Conference on ICCSE, IEEE Press, Singapore, 1091-1093. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCSE.2011.6028824 [7] Jayanthi, J.G. and Rabara, S.A. (2010) Transition and Mobility Management in the Integrated IPv4 and IPv6 Net- work—A Systematic Review. International Conference On ICEIE, IEEE, Kyoto, 151-162. [8] Wu, P., Cui, Y., Wu, J.P., Liu, J. and Metz, C. (2012) Transition from IPv4 to IPv6: A State-of-the-Art Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 99, 1-18. [9] Wu, P., Cui, Y., Xu, M., Wu, J., Li, X., Metz, C. and Wang, S. (2010) PET: Prefixing, Encapsulation and Translation for IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence. GLOBECOM 2010, IEEE Press, Miami, 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/GLOCOM.2010.5683446 [10] Miyata, H. and Endo, M. (2010) Design and Evaluation of IPv4/IPv6 Translator for IP Based Industrial Network Pro- tocol. 8th IEEE International Conference on INDIN, IEEE Press, Osaka, 142-147. [11] Govil, J., Kaur, N. and Kaur, H. (2008) An Examination of IPv4 and IPv6 Networks: Constraints and Various Transi- tion Mechanisms. IEEE Southeastcon, IEEE Press, Huntsville, 178-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SECON.2008.4494282 [12] Ge, J.G., Mi, W. and Wu, Y.L. (2014) The IPv6 Transition Mechanisms: Survey, Evaluation Criteria and Deployment Considerations. Journal of Software, 4, 896-912. [13] Nordmark, E. (2000) Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm. IETF RFC 2765. [14] Li, X., Bao, C.X., Chen, M., Zhang, H. and Wu, J. (2011) The CERNET IVI Translation Design and Deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition. IETF RFC 6219. [15] Tsirtsis, G. and Srisuresh, P. (2000) Network Address Translation—Protocol Translation (NAT-PT). IETF RFC 2766. [16] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P. and Van Beijnum, I. (2011) Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers. IETF RFC 6146. [17] Huang, B., Deng, H. and Savolainen (2012) Dual-Stack Hosts Using “Bump-in-the-Host” (BIH). IETF RFC 6535. [18] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M. and By r ne, C. (2013) 464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation. IETF RFC 6877. [19] Bao, C., Li, X., Zhai, Y., et al. (2013) dIVI: Dual-Stateless IPv4/IPv6 Translation. IETF Draft (Work in Progress). [20] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., et al. (2013) Mapping of Address and Port Using Translation (MAP-T). IETF Draft (Work in Progress).
|