Independent Submission C. Donley, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7021 CableLabs
Category: Informational L. Howard
ISSN: 2070-1721 Time Warner Cable
V. Kuarsingh
Rogers Communications
J. Berg
CableLabs
J. Doshi
Juniper Networks
September 2013
Independent Submission C. Donley, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7021 CableLabs
Category: Informational L. Howard
ISSN: 2070-1721 Time Warner Cable
V. Kuarsingh
Rogers Communications
J. Berg
CableLabs
J. Doshi
Juniper Networks
September 2013
Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications
评估运营商级NAT对网络应用的影响
Abstract
摘要
NAT444 is an IPv4 extension technology being considered by Service Providers as a means to continue offering IPv4 service to customers while transitioning to IPv6. This technology adds an extra Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) in the Service Provider network, often resulting in two NATs. CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers Communications independently tested the impacts of NAT444 on many popular Internet services using a variety of test scenarios, network topologies, and vendor equipment. This document identifies areas where adding a second layer of NAT disrupts the communication channel for common Internet applications. This document was updated to include the Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) impacts also.
NAT444是一种IPv4扩展技术，服务提供商将其视为在过渡到IPv6时继续向客户提供IPv4服务的一种手段。该技术在服务提供商网络中添加了一个额外的载波级NAT（CGN），通常会产生两个NAT。CableLabs、Time Warner Cable和Rogers Communications使用各种测试场景、网络拓扑和供应商设备独立测试了NAT444对许多流行互联网服务的影响。本文档确定了添加第二层NAT会中断常见Internet应用程序通信通道的区域。本文件已更新，以包括双堆栈精简版（DS精简版）的影响。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
这是对RFC系列的贡献，独立于任何其他RFC流。RFC编辑器已选择自行发布此文档，并且未声明其对实现或部署的价值。RFC编辑批准发布的文件不适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7021.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7021.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2013 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Testing Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Case 1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. Case 2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3. Case 3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.4. Case 4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two
Service Providers Cross ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. General Test Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Test Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. Test Scenarios Executed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. General Test Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Observed CGN Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Dropped Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Performance Impacted Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Improvements since 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4. Additional CGN Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. 2011 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. NAT444 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. DS-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. 2010 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Case 1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Case 2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3. Case 3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single Service
Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4. Case 4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service
Providers Cross ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. CGN Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Testing Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Case 1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2. Case 2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.3. Case 3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.4. Case 4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two
Service Providers Cross ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. General Test Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Test Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4. Test Scenarios Executed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. General Test Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Observed CGN Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Dropped Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. Performance Impacted Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Improvements since 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4. Additional CGN Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. 2011 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. NAT444 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. DS-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. 2010 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Case 1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Case 2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single
Service Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3. Case 3: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Single Service
Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4. Case 4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service
Providers Cross ISP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. CGN Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
IANA, APNIC, and RIPE NCC exhausted their IPv4 address space in 2011- 2012. Current projections suggest that ARIN may exhaust its free pool of IPv4 addresses in 2013. IPv6 is the solution to the IPv4 depletion problem; however, the transition to IPv6 will not be completed prior to IPv4 exhaustion. NAT444 [NAT444] and Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] are transition mechanisms that will allow Service Providers to multiplex customers behind a single IPv4 address, which will allow many legacy devices and applications some IPv4 connectivity. While both NAT444 and Dual-Stack Lite provide basic IPv4 connectivity, they impact a number of advanced applications. This document describes suboptimal behaviors of NAT444 and DS-Lite found in our test environments.
IANA、APNIC和NCC在2011-2012年耗尽了IPv4地址空间。目前的预测表明，ARIN可能在2013年耗尽其IPv4地址的免费池。IPv6是IPv4耗尽问题的解决方案；但是，在IPv4耗尽之前，无法完成向IPv6的过渡。NAT444[NAT444]和双栈Lite[RFC6333]是转换机制，允许服务提供商在单个IPv4地址后多路传输客户，这将允许许多传统设备和应用程序使用IPv4连接。虽然NAT444和双栈Lite都提供基本的IPv4连接，但它们会影响许多高级应用程序。本文档描述了在我们的测试环境中发现的NAT444和DS Lite的次优行为。
From July through August 2010, CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers Communications tested the impact of NAT444 on common applications using Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) devices. This testing was focused on a wide array of real-time usage scenarios designed to evaluate the user experience over the public Internet using NAT444 in both single and dual ISP environments. The purpose of this testing was to identify applications where the technology either breaks or significantly impacts the user experience. The testing revealed that applications, such as video streaming, video gaming, and peer-to-peer file sharing, are impacted by NAT444.
从2010年7月到8月，CableLabs、时代华纳有线电视公司和罗杰斯通信公司测试了NAT444对使用载波级NAT（CGN）设备的常见应用的影响。该测试的重点是一系列实时使用场景，旨在评估在单ISP和双ISP环境中使用NAT444通过公共互联网的用户体验。此测试的目的是识别技术中断或显著影响用户体验的应用程序。测试表明，视频流、视频游戏和点对点文件共享等应用程序受到NAT444的影响。
From June through October 2011, CableLabs conducted additional testing of CGN technologies, including both NAT444 and Dual-Stack Lite. The testing focused on working with several vendors including A10, Alcatel-Lucent, and Juniper to optimize the performance of those applications that experienced negative impacts during earlier CGN testing and to expand the testing to DS-Lite.
2011年6月至10月，CableLabs对CGN技术进行了额外测试，包括NAT444和双栈Lite。测试的重点是与多家供应商合作，包括A10、阿尔卡特朗讯和Juniper，以优化那些在早期CGN测试中受到负面影响的应用程序的性能，并将测试扩展到DS Lite。
Applications that were tested included, but were not necessarily limited to, the following:
测试的应用包括但不限于以下内容：
1. Video/Audio streaming, e.g., Silverlight-based applications, Netflix, YouTube, Pandora 2
1. 视频/音频流，例如基于Silverlight的应用程序、Netflix、YouTube、Pandora 2
2. Peer-to-peer applications, e.g., video gaming, uTorrent
2. 对等应用程序，例如视频游戏、uTorrent
3. Online gaming, e.g., Xbox
3. 在线游戏，如Xbox
4. Large file transfers using File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
4. 使用文件传输协议（FTP）进行大文件传输
5. Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) calls via X-Lite, Skype
5. 通过X-Lite、Skype进行会话启动协议（SIP）呼叫
6. Social Networking, e.g., Facebook, Webkinz
6. 社交网络，如Facebook、Webkinz
7. Video chat, e.g., Skype
7. 视频聊天，例如Skype
8. Web conferencing
8. 网络会议
The diagrams below depict the general network architecture used for testing NAT444 and Dual-Stack Lite coexistence technologies at CableLabs.
下图描述了CableLabs用于测试NAT444和双栈Lite共存技术的通用网络体系结构。
2.1.1. Case 1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single Service Provider
2.1.1. 案例1：单一客户端、单一家庭网络、单一服务提供商
^^^^^^^^
(Internet)
vvvvvvvv
|
|
+---------------+
| CGN |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CMTS |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CM |
+---------------+
|
+-------------------------+
| Home Router |
+-------------------------+
|
+---------------+
| Client |
+---------------+
^^^^^^^^
(Internet)
vvvvvvvv
|
|
+---------------+
| CGN |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CMTS |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CM |
+---------------+
|
+-------------------------+
| Home Router |
+-------------------------+
|
+---------------+
| Client |
+---------------+
This is a typical case for a client accessing content on the Internet. For this case, we focused on basic web browsing, voice and video chat, instant messaging, video streaming (using YouTube, Google Videos, etc.), torrent leeching and seeding, FTP, and gaming.
这是客户端访问Internet内容的典型情况。在本例中，我们重点关注基本的web浏览、语音和视频聊天、即时消息、视频流（使用YouTube、谷歌视频等）、torrent-leeching和种子、FTP和游戏。
2.1.2. Case 2: Two Clients, Single Home Network, Single Service Provider
2.1.2. 案例2：两个客户端、单一家庭网络、单一服务提供商
^^^^^^^^
(Internet)
vvvvvvvv
|
|
+---------------+
| CGN |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CMTS |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CM |
+---------------+
|
+-------------------------+
| Home Router |
+-------------------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Client | | Client |
+---------------+ +---------------+
^^^^^^^^
(Internet)
vvvvvvvv
|
|
+---------------+
| CGN |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CMTS |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CM |
+---------------+
|
+-------------------------+
| Home Router |
+-------------------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Client | | Client |
+---------------+ +---------------+
This is similar to Case 1, except that two clients are behind the same Large-Scale NAT (LSN) and in the same home network. This test case was conducted to observe any change in speed in basic web browsing and video streaming.
这与情况1类似，不同之处在于两个客户端位于同一个大规模NAT（LSN）后面，并且位于同一个家庭网络中。此测试用例用于观察基本web浏览和视频流速度的任何变化。
^^^^^^^^
(Internet)
vvvvvvvv
|
|
+---------------+
| CGN |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CMTS |
+---------------+
|
----------------------------------------
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| CM | | CM |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| Home Router | | Home Router |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Client | | Client |
+---------------+ +---------------+
^^^^^^^^
(Internet)
vvvvvvvv
|
|
+---------------+
| CGN |
+---------------+
|
+---------------+
| CMTS |
+---------------+
|
----------------------------------------
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| CM | | CM |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| Home Router | | Home Router |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Client | | Client |
+---------------+ +---------------+
In this scenario, the two clients are under the same LSN but behind two different gateways. This simulates connectivity between two residential subscribers on the same ISP. We tested peer-to-peer applications.
在此场景中，两个客户端位于相同的LSN下，但位于两个不同的网关后面。这模拟了同一ISP上两个住宅用户之间的连接。我们测试了点对点应用程序。
2.1.4. Case 4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service Providers Cross ISP
2.1.4. 案例4：两个客户端、两个家庭网络、两个服务提供商跨ISP
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
( ISP A ) ( ISP B )
Vvvvvvvv vvvvvvvv
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| LSN | | LSN |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| CMTS | | CMTS |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| CM | | CM |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| Home Router | | Home Router |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Client | | Client |
+---------------+ +---------------+
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
( ISP A ) ( ISP B )
Vvvvvvvv vvvvvvvv
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| LSN | | LSN |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| CMTS | | CMTS |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| CM | | CM |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| Home Router | | Home Router |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Client | | Client |
+---------------+ +---------------+
This test case is similar to Case 1 but with the addition of another identical ISP. This topology allows us to test traffic between two residential customers connected across the Internet. We focused on client-to-client applications such as IM and peer-to-peer.
此测试用例与用例1相似，但添加了另一个相同的ISP。这种拓扑结构允许我们测试通过互联网连接的两个住宅客户之间的通信量。我们专注于客户机对客户机应用程序，如IM和点对点。
The lab environment was intended to emulate multiple Service Provider networks with a CGN deployed and with connectivity to the public IPv4 or IPv6 Internet (as dictated by the coexistence technology under test). This was accomplished by configuring a CGN behind multiple cable modem termination systems (CMTSs) and setting up multiple home networks for each ISP. Testing involved sending traffic to and from the public Internet in both single and dual ISP environments, using both single and multiple home networks. The following equipment was used for testing:
实验室环境旨在模拟多个服务提供商网络，部署CGN，并连接到公共IPv4或IPv6互联网（由测试中的共存技术决定）。这是通过在多个电缆调制解调器终端系统（CMTSs）后面配置CGN并为每个ISP设置多个家庭网络来实现的。测试包括在单ISP和双ISP环境下，使用单家庭网络和多家庭网络向公共互联网发送通信量和从公共互联网发送通信量。以下设备用于测试：
o CGN
o CGN
o CMTS
o CMT
o Cable Modem (CM)
o 电缆调制解调器（CM）
o IP sniffer
o IP嗅探器
o RF (radio frequency) sniffer
o 射频嗅探器
o Metrics tools (for network performance)
o 度量工具（用于网络性能）
o CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) gateway devices
o CPE（客户场所设备）网关设备
o Laptop or desktop computers (multiple OSs used)
o 笔记本电脑或台式电脑（使用多个操作系统）
o Gaming consoles
o 游戏机
o iPad or tablet devices
o iPad或平板电脑设备
o other Customer Edge (CE) equipment, e.g., Blu-ray players supporting miscellaneous applications
o 其他客户边缘（CE）设备，例如支持各种应用的蓝光播放器
One or more CPE gateway devices were configured in the home network. One or more host devices behind the gateways were also configured in order to test conditions, such as multiple users on multiple home networks in the CGN architecture, both in single and dual ISP environments.
在家庭网络中配置了一个或多个CPE网关设备。网关后面的一个或多个主机设备也进行了配置，以便在单ISP和双ISP环境中测试条件，例如CGN体系结构中多个家庭网络上的多个用户。
The scope of testing was honed down to the specific types of applications and network conditions that demonstrated a high probability of diminishing user experience based on prior testing. The following use cases were tested:
测试范围被细化为特定类型的应用程序和网络条件，这些应用程序和网络条件表明，基于先前的测试，用户体验很可能会减少。测试了以下用例：
1. Video streaming over Netflix
1. Netflix上的视频流
2. Video streaming over YouTube
2. YouTube上的视频流
3. Video streaming over Joost
3. Joost上的视频流
4. Online gaming with Xbox (one user)
4. 使用Xbox的在线游戏（一个用户）
5. Peer-to-peer gaming with Xbox (two users)
5. 使用Xbox进行点对点游戏（两名用户）
6. BitTorrent/uTorrent file seeding/leeching
6. BitTorrent/uTorrent文件种子设定/删除
7. Pandora Internet Radio
7. 潘多拉网络电台
8. FTP server
8. FTP服务器
9. Web conferencing GoToMeeting (GTM), WebEx
9. 网络会议GoToMeeting（GTM），WebEx
10. Social Networking -- Facebook, Webkinz (chat, YouTube, file transfer)
10. 社交网络——Facebook、Webkinz（聊天、YouTube、文件传输）
11. Internet Archive -- Video and Audio streaming; large file downloads
11. 互联网档案——视频和音频流媒体；大文件下载
12. Video streaming using iClips
12. 使用iClips的视频流
13. SIP Calls -- X-Lite, Skype, PJSIP
13. SIP呼叫——X-Lite、Skype、PJSIP
14. Microsoft Smooth Streaming (Silverlight)
14. Microsoft平滑流媒体（Silverlight）
15. Video chat -- Skype, ooVoo
15. 视频聊天--Skype，ooVoo
The following CPE devices were used for testing these applications on one or more home networks:
以下CPE设备用于在一个或多个家庭网络上测试这些应用程序：
1. Windows 7, XP, and Vista-based laptops
1. 基于Windows 7、XP和Vista的笔记本电脑
2. Mac OS X laptop
2. MacOSX笔记本电脑
3. iPad
3. iPad
4. Xbox gaming consoles
4. Xbox游戏机
5. iPhone and Android smartphones
5. iPhone和Android智能手机
6. LG Blu-ray player (test applications such as Netflix, Vudu, etc.)
6. LG蓝光播放器（测试应用程序，如Netflix、Vudu等）
7. Home routers -- Netgear, Linksys, D-Link, Cisco, Apple
7. 家庭路由器——Netgear、Linksys、D-Link、思科、苹果
Metrics data that were collected during the course of testing were related to throughput, latency, and jitter. These metrics were evaluated under three conditions:
测试过程中收集的度量数据与吞吐量、延迟和抖动有关。这些指标在三个条件下进行评估：
1. Initial finding on the CGN configuration used for testing
1. 用于测试的CGN配置的初步发现
2. Retest of the same test scenario with the CGN removed from the network
2. 从网络中删除CGN后重新测试同一测试场景
3. Retest with a new configuration (optimized) on the CGN (when possible)
3. 使用CGN上的新配置（优化）重新测试（如果可能）
In our testing, we found only slight differences with respect to latency or jitter when the CGN was in the network versus when it was not present in the network. It should be noted that we did not
在我们的测试中，我们发现当CGN在网络中时与不在网络中时，在延迟或抖动方面只有细微的差异。应该指出的是，我们没有这样做
conduct any performance testing and metrics gathered were limited to single session scenarios. Also, bandwidth was not restricted on the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) network. Simulated homes shared a single DOCSIS upstream and downstream channel. (In the following table, "us" stands for microsecond.)
执行任何性能测试，收集的指标仅限于单个会话场景。此外，带宽不受有线数据服务接口规范（DOCSIS）网络的限制。模拟家庭共享一个DOCSIS上游和下游通道。（下表中，“us”代表微秒。）
+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------------+---------+
| Case | Avg | Min | Max | [RFC4689] | Max |
| | Latency | Latency | Latency | Absolute Avg | Jitter |
| | | | | Jitter | |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------------+---------+
| With | 240.32 | 233.77 | 428.40 | 1.86 us | 191.22 |
| CGN | us | us | us | | us |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------------+---------+
| Without | 211.88 | 190.39 | 402.69 | 0.07 us | 176.16 |
| CGN | us | us | us | | us |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------------+---------+
+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------------+---------+
| Case | Avg | Min | Max | [RFC4689] | Max |
| | Latency | Latency | Latency | Absolute Avg | Jitter |
| | | | | Jitter | |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------------+---------+
| With | 240.32 | 233.77 | 428.40 | 1.86 us | 191.22 |
| CGN | us | us | us | | us |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------------+---------+
| Without | 211.88 | 190.39 | 402.69 | 0.07 us | 176.16 |
| CGN | us | us | us | | us |
+---------+---------+---------+---------+-----------------+---------+
CGN Performance
CGN性能
Note: Performance testing as defined by CableLabs includes load testing, induction of impairments on the network, etc. This type of testing was out of scope for CGN testing.
注：CableLabs定义的性能测试包括负载测试、网络损伤感应等。此类测试不在CGN测试范围内。
The following test scenarios were executed using the aforementioned applications and test equipment:
使用上述应用程序和测试设备执行以下测试场景：
1. Single ISP, Single Home Network, with Single User
1. 单ISP、单家庭网络、单用户
2. Single ISP, Two Home Networks, with One User on Each Network
2. 单个ISP，两个家庭网络，每个网络上有一个用户
3. Dual ISPs, Single Home Network, with Single User on Each ISP
3. 双ISP，单家庭网络，每个ISP上有一个用户
4. Dual ISPs, One Home Network, with One User connected to ISP-A; Two Home Networks, with One User on Each connected to ISP-B
4. 双ISP，一个家庭网络，一个用户连接到ISP-A；两个家庭网络，每个网络上有一个用户连接到ISP-B
These test scenarios were executed for both NAT444 and DS-Lite technologies.
这些测试场景是针对NAT444和DS Lite技术执行的。
The CGN was configured for the optimal setting for the specific test being executed for NAT444 or DS-Lite. Individual vendors provided validation of the configuration used for the coexistence technology under test prior to the start of testing. Some NAT444 testing used private [RFC1918] IPv4 space between the CGN and CPE router; other
CGN配置为针对NAT444或DS Lite执行的特定测试的最佳设置。在开始测试之前，个别供应商提供了用于测试中共存技术的配置验证。一些NAT444测试在CGN和CPE路由器之间使用专用[RFC1918]IPv4空间；另外
tests used public (non-[RFC1918]) IPv4 space between the CGN and CPE router. With the exception of 6to4 [RFC3056] traffic, we observed no difference in test results whether private or public address space was used. 6to4 failed when public space was used between the CGN and the CPE router was public, but CPE routers did not initiate 6to4 when private space was used.
测试使用CGN和CPE路由器之间的公共（非[RFC1918]）IPv4空间。除了6to4[RFC3056]通信量之外，我们观察到无论是使用私有还是公共广播空间，测试结果都没有差异。当CGN和CPE路由器之间使用公共空间时，6to4失败，但当使用私有空间时，CPE路由器未启动6to4。
CPE gateways and client devices were configured with IPv4 or IPv6 addresses using DHCP or manual configuration, as required by each of the devices used in the test.
根据测试中使用的每个设备的要求，使用DHCP或手动配置为CPE网关和客户端设备配置IPv4或IPv6地址。
All devices were brought to operational state. Connectivity of CPE devices to provider network and public Internet was verified prior to the start of each test.
所有设备均处于运行状态。在每次测试开始之前，验证CPE设备与提供商网络和公共互联网的连接。
IP sniffers and metrics tools were configured as required before starting tests. IP capture and metrics data was collected for all failed test scenarios. Sniffing was configured behind the home routers, north and south of the CMTS, and north and south of the CGN.
IP嗅探器和度量工具在开始测试之前已按要求配置。收集了所有失败测试场景的IP捕获和度量数据。嗅探配置在家庭路由器后面，CMT的北部和南部，以及CGN的北部和南部。
The test technician executed test scenarios listed above, for single and dual ISP environments, testing multiple users on multiple home networks, using the applications described above where applicable to the each specific test scenario. Results and checklists were compiled for all tests executed and for each combination of devices tested.
测试技术人员针对单ISP和双ISP环境执行上述测试场景，在适用于每个特定测试场景的情况下，使用上述应用程序在多个家庭网络上测试多个用户。针对所有执行的测试以及测试的每个设备组合，编制了结果和检查表。
CGN testing revealed that basic services such as email and web browsing worked normally and as expected. However, there were some service-affecting issues noted for applications that fall into two categories: dropped service and performance impacted service. In addition, for some specific applications in which the performance was impacted, throughput, latency, and jitter measurements were taken. We observed that performance often differs from vendor to vendor and from test environment to test environment, and the results are somewhat difficult to predict. So as to not become a comparison between different vendor implementations, these results are presented in summary form. When issues were identified, we worked with the vendors involved to confirm the specific issues and explore workarounds. Except where noted, impacts to NAT444 and DS-Lite were similar.
CGN测试显示，电子邮件和网络浏览等基本服务正常工作，并符合预期。但是，对于分为两类的应用程序，存在一些影响服务的问题：丢弃的服务和受性能影响的服务。此外，对于性能受到影响的某些特定应用程序，还进行了吞吐量、延迟和抖动测量。我们观察到，不同的供应商和不同的测试环境的性能往往不同，并且结果有些难以预测。为了避免成为不同供应商实现之间的比较，这些结果以摘要形式呈现。确定问题后，我们与相关供应商合作，确认具体问题并探索解决办法。除注明外，对NAT444和DS Lite的影响相似。
In 2010 testing, we identified that IPv6 transition technologies such as 6to4 [RFC3056] and Teredo [RFC4380] fail outright or are subject to severe service degradation. We did not repeat transition technology testing in 2011.
在2010年的测试中，我们发现诸如6to4[RFC3056]和Teredo[RFC4380]之类的IPv6转换技术彻底失败或服务严重降级。2011年，我们没有重复过渡技术测试。
Note: While email and web browsing operated as expected within our environment, there have been reports that anti-spam/anti-abuse measures limiting the number of connections from a single address can cause problems in a CGN environment by improperly interpreting address sharing as too many connections from a single device. Care should be taken when deploying CGNs to mitigate the impact of address sharing when configuring anti-spam/anti-abuse measures. See Section 3.4.
注意：虽然电子邮件和网络浏览在我们的环境中按预期运行，但有报告称，限制来自单个地址的连接数的反垃圾邮件/反滥用措施可能会在CGN环境中造成问题，因为不正确地将地址共享解释为来自单个设备的连接过多。在配置反垃圾邮件/反滥用措施时，部署CGN时应小心，以减轻地址共享的影响。见第3.4节。
Several peer-to-peer applications, specifically peer-to-peer gaming using Xbox and peer-to-peer SIP calls using the PJSIP client, failed in both the NAT444 and Dual-Stack Lite environments. Many CGN devices use "full cone" NAT so that once the CGN maps a port for outbound services, it will accept incoming connections to that port. However, some applications did not first send outgoing traffic and hence did not open an incoming port through the CGN. Other applications try to open a particular fixed port through the CGN; while service will work for a single subscriber behind the CGN, it fails when multiple subscribers try to use that port.
一些对等应用程序，特别是使用Xbox的对等游戏和使用PJSIP客户端的对等SIP调用，在NAT444和双栈Lite环境中都失败。许多CGN设备使用“全锥”NAT，因此一旦CGN映射出站服务的端口，它将接受到该端口的传入连接。但是，有些应用程序没有首先发送传出流量，因此没有通过CGN打开传入端口。其他应用程序试图通过CGN打开特定的固定端口；虽然服务将为CGN后面的单个订户工作，但当多个订户尝试使用该端口时，服务将失败。
PJSIP and other SIP software worked when clients used a registration server to initiate calls, provided that the client inside the CGN initiated the traffic first and that only one SIP user was active behind a single IPv4 address at any given time. However, in our testing, we observed that when making a direct client-to-client SIP call across two home networks on a single ISP, or when calling from a single home network across dual ISPs, calls could neither be initiated nor received.
PJSIP和其他SIP软件在客户端使用注册服务器发起呼叫时起作用，前提是CGN内的客户端首先发起通信，并且在任何给定时间只有一个SIP用户在单个IPv4地址后处于活动状态。然而，在我们的测试中，我们观察到，当在单个ISP的两个家庭网络上进行直接的客户端到客户端SIP呼叫时，或者当从单个家庭网络跨两个ISP呼叫时，呼叫既不能启动也不能接收。
In the case of peer-to-peer gaming between two Xbox 360 users in different home networks on the same ISP, the game could not be connected between the two users. Both users shared an outside IP address and tried to connect to the same port, causing a connection failure. There are some interesting nuances to this problem. In the case where two users are in the same home network and the scenario is through a single ISP, when the Xbox tries to register with the Xbox server, the server sees that both Xboxes are coming through the same public IP address and directs the devices to connect using their internal IP addresses. So, the connection ultimately gets established directly between both Xboxes via the home gateway, rather than the Xbox server. In the case where there are two Xbox users on two different home networks using a single ISP and the CGN is configured with only one public IPv4 address, this scenario will not work because the route between the two users cannot be determined. However, if the CGN is configured with two public NAT IP addresses, this scenario will work because now there is a unique IP address with
在同一ISP上不同家庭网络中的两个Xbox 360用户之间进行点对点游戏的情况下，两个用户之间无法连接游戏。两个用户共享一个外部IP地址，并试图连接到同一端口，导致连接失败。这个问题有一些有趣的细微差别。如果两个用户在同一个家庭网络中，并且场景是通过一个ISP，那么当Xbox尝试向Xbox服务器注册时，服务器会发现两个Xbox都通过相同的公共IP地址，并指示设备使用其内部IP地址进行连接。因此，最终通过家庭网关而不是Xbox服务器在两台Xbox之间直接建立连接。如果使用单个ISP的两个不同家庭网络上有两个Xbox用户，且CGN仅配置了一个公共IPv4地址，则此方案将不起作用，因为无法确定两个用户之间的路由。但是，如果CGN配置了两个公共NAT IP地址，则此方案将起作用，因为现在有一个具有
which to communicate. This is not an ideal solution, however, because it means that there is a one-to-one relationship between IP addresses in the public NAT and the number of Xbox users on each network.
要传达的信息。然而，这不是一个理想的解决方案，因为这意味着公共NAT中的IP地址与每个网络上的Xbox用户数之间存在一对一的关系。
Update: in December 2011, Microsoft released an update for Xbox. While we did not conduct thorough testing using the new release, preliminary testing indicates that Xboxes that upgraded to the latest version can play head-to-head behind a CGN, at least for some games.
更新：2011年12月，微软发布了Xbox的更新。虽然我们没有使用新版本进行彻底的测试，但初步测试表明，升级到最新版本的Xbox可以在CGN后面进行头对头游戏，至少在某些游戏中是这样。
Other peer-to-peer applications that were noted to fail were seeding sessions initiated on BitTorrent and uTorrent. In our test, torrent seeding was initiated on a client inside the CGN. Leeching was initiated using a client on the public Internet. It was observed that direct peer-to-peer seeding did not work. However, the torrent session typically redirected the leeching client to a proxy server, in which case the torrent session was set up successfully. Additionally, with the proxy in the network, re-seeding via additional leech clients worked as would be expected for a typical torrent session. Finally, uTorrent tries to use Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) to identify its outside address. In working with vendors, we learned that increasing the STUN timeout to 4 minutes improved uTorrent seeding performance behind a CGN, resulting in the ability for the uTorrent client to open a port and successfully seed content.
其他被发现失败的对等应用程序是在BitTorrent和uTorrent上启动的种子会话。在我们的测试中，torrent种子是在CGN内部的客户端上启动的。窃听是使用公共互联网上的客户端启动的。据观察，直接点对点播种不起作用。但是，torrent会话通常会将偷窥客户端重定向到代理服务器，在这种情况下，torrent会话设置成功。此外，使用网络中的代理，通过额外的leech客户端重新播种的效果与典型torrent会话的预期一样。最后，uTorrent尝试使用NAT的会话遍历实用程序（STUN）来识别其外部地址。在与供应商的合作中，我们了解到，将STUN超时增加到4分钟可以提高CGN背后的uTorrent种子植入性能，从而使uTorrent客户端能够打开端口并成功地植入内容。
FTP sessions to servers located inside the home (e.g., behind two layers of NAT) failed. When the CGN was bypassed and traffic only needed to flow through one layer of NAT, clients were able to connect. Finally, multicast traffic was not forwarded through the CGN.
到位于家庭内部（例如，两层NAT后面）的服务器的FTP会话失败。当CGN被绕过，流量只需要流经一层NAT时，客户端就可以连接。最后，多播流量没有通过CGN转发。
Large size file transfers and multiple video streaming sessions initiated on a single client on the same home network behind the CGN experienced reduced performance in our environment. We measured these variations in user experience against a baseline IPv4 environment where NAT is not deployed.
在我们的环境中，在CGN后面的同一家庭网络上的单个客户端上启动的大型文件传输和多个视频流会话的性能降低。我们在未部署NAT的基线IPv4环境中测量了用户体验的这些变化。
In our testing, we tried large file transfers from several FTP sites, as well as downloading sizable audio and video files (750 MB to 1.4 GB) from the Internet Archive. We observed that when Dual-Stack Lite was implemented for some specific home router and client combinations, the transfer rate was markedly slower. For example, PC1 using one operating system behind the same home router as PC2 using a different operating system yielded a transfer rate of 120 kbps for PC1, versus 250 kbps for PC2. Our conclusion is that
在我们的测试中，我们尝试了从几个FTP站点传输大型文件，以及从Internet存档下载大量音频和视频文件（750MB到1.4GB）。我们观察到，当为某些特定的家庭路由器和客户端组合实现双栈Lite时，传输速率明显较慢。例如，PC1在同一个家庭路由器后面使用一个操作系统，PC2使用不同的操作系统，PC1的传输速率为120 kbps，而PC2为250 kbps。我们的结论是
varying combinations of home routers and CE-client devices may result in a user experience that is less than what the user would expect for typical applications. It is also difficult to predict which combinations of CPE routers and CE devices will produce a reduced experience for the user. We did not analyze the root cause of the divergence in performance across CE devices, as this was beyond the scope of our testing. However, as this issue was specific to Dual-Stack Lite, we suspect that it is related to the MTU.
家庭路由器和CE客户端设备的不同组合可能导致用户体验低于用户对典型应用的期望。还很难预测CPE路由器和CE设备的哪些组合将为用户带来减少的体验。我们没有分析CE设备性能差异的根本原因，因为这超出了我们的测试范围。但是，由于此问题是针对双堆栈Lite的，我们怀疑它与MTU有关。
While video streaming sessions for a single user generally performed well, testing revealed that video streaming sessions such as Microsoft Smooth Streaming technology (i.e., Silverlight) or Netflix might also exhibit some service impacting behavior. In particular, this was observed on one older, yet popular and well-known CPE router where the first session was severely degraded when a second session was initiated in the same home network. Traffic from the first session ceased for 8 s once the second session was initiated. While we are tempted to write this off as a problematic home router, its popularity suggests that home router interactions may cause issues in NAT444 deployments (newer routers that support DS-Lite were not observed to experience this condition). Overall, longer buffering times for video sessions were noted for most client devices behind all types of home routers. However, once the initial buffering was complete, the video streams were consistently smooth. In addition, there were varying degrees as to how well multiple video sessions were displayed on various client devices across the CPE routers tested. Some video playback devices performed better than others.
虽然单个用户的视频流会话通常表现良好，但测试表明，诸如Microsoft Smooth streaming technology（即Silverlight）或Netflix等视频流会话也可能表现出一些影响服务的行为。特别是，在一个较旧但流行且众所周知的CPE路由器上观察到了这种情况，其中第一个会话在同一家庭网络中启动第二个会话时严重降级。第二个会话启动后，第一个会话的通信停止8秒。虽然我们很想将其视为有问题的家庭路由器，但它的流行表明家庭路由器交互可能会导致NAT444部署中出现问题（未观察到支持DS Lite的较新路由器出现这种情况）。总的来说，在所有类型的家庭路由器后面的大多数客户端设备中，视频会话的缓冲时间更长。然而，一旦初始缓冲完成，视频流就会一直平滑。此外，在测试的CPE路由器上，多个视频会话在各种客户端设备上的显示程度也不同。一些视频播放设备的性能比其他设备好。
Since CableLabs completed initial CGN testing in 2010, there have been quantifiable improvements in performance over CGN since that time. These improvements may be categorized as follows:
自从CableLabs在2010年完成了初始CGN测试以来，与CGN相比，性能有了可量化的改进。这些改进可分为以下几类：
o Content provider updates
o 内容提供商更新
o Application updates
o 应用程序更新
o Improvements on the CGNs themselves
o CGN本身的改进
In terms of content provider updates, we have noted improvements in the overall performance of streaming applications in the CGN environment. Whereas applications such as streaming video were very problematic a year ago with regard to jitter and latency, our most recent testing revealed that there is less of an issue with these conditions, except in some cases when multiple video streaming
在内容提供商更新方面，我们注意到CGN环境中流媒体应用程序的整体性能有所提高。一年前，流式视频等应用程序在抖动和延迟方面存在很大问题，但我们最近的测试表明，这些情况的问题较少，除非在某些情况下出现多个视频流
sessions were initiated on the same client using specific types of home routers. Applications such as MS Smooth Streaming appear to have addressed these issues to some degree.
会话是使用特定类型的家庭路由器在同一客户机上启动的。MS Smooth Streaming等应用程序似乎在一定程度上解决了这些问题。
As far as application updates, use of STUN and/or proxy servers to offset some of the limitations of NAT and tunneling in the network are more evident as workarounds to the peer-to-peer issues. Applications appear to have incorporated other mechanisms for delivering content faster, even if buffering times are somewhat slower and the content is not rendered as quickly.
就应用程序更新而言，使用STUN和/或代理服务器来抵消网络中NAT和隧道的一些限制，作为解决点对点问题的解决办法，更为明显。应用程序似乎结合了其他机制来更快地交付内容，即使缓冲时间稍慢，并且内容呈现速度也不快。
CGN vendors have also upgraded their devices to mitigate several known issues with specific applications. With regard to addressing peer-to-peer SIP call applications, port reservations appear to be a workaround to the problem. However, this approach has limitations because there are limited numbers of users that can have port reservations at any given time. For example, one CGN implementation allowed a port reservation to be made on port 5060 (default SIP port), but this was the only port that could be configured for the SIP client. This means that only one user can be granted the port reservation.
CGN供应商还升级了他们的设备，以缓解特定应用程序中的几个已知问题。关于解决点对点SIP呼叫应用，端口预留似乎是解决该问题的一种方法。但是，这种方法有局限性，因为在任何给定时间都可以保留端口的用户数量有限。例如，一个CGN实现允许在端口5060（默认SIP端口）上进行端口保留，但这是可以为SIP客户端配置的唯一端口。这意味着只能向一个用户授予端口保留。
There are other challenges that arise when using shared IPv4 address space, as with NAT444. Some of these challenges include:
在使用共享IPv4地址空间（如NAT444）时，还存在其他挑战。其中一些挑战包括：
o Loss of geolocation information - Often, translation zones will cross traditional geographic boundaries. Since the source addresses of packets traversing an LSN are set to the external address of the LSN, it is difficult for external entities to associate IP/Port information to specific locations/areas.
o 地理位置信息丢失-通常，转换区会跨越传统的地理边界。由于通过LSN的分组的源地址被设置为LSN的外部地址，因此外部实体难以将IP/端口信息与特定位置/区域相关联。
o Lawful Intercept/Abuse Response - Due to the nature of NAT444 address sharing, it will be hard to determine the customer/ endpoint responsible for initiating a specific IPv4 flow based on source IP address alone. Content providers, Service Providers, and law enforcement agencies will need to use new mechanisms (e.g., logging source port and timestamp in addition to source IP address) to potentially mitigate this new problem. This may impact the timely response to various identification requests. See [RFC6269].
o 合法拦截/滥用响应-由于NAT444地址共享的性质，很难确定仅基于源IP地址就负责启动特定IPv4流的客户/端点。内容提供商、服务提供商和执法机构将需要使用新的机制（例如，除了源IP地址之外，还要记录源端口和时间戳）来潜在地缓解这一新问题。这可能会影响对各种身份验证请求的及时响应。见[RFC6269]。
o Anti-spoofing - Multiplexing users behind a single IP address can lead to situations where traffic from that address triggers anti-spoofing/DDoS-protection mechanisms, resulting in unintentional loss of connectivity for some users. We have received reports of
o 反欺骗-在单个IP地址后面多路复用用户可能会导致来自该地址的流量触发反欺骗/DDoS保护机制，从而导致某些用户无意中失去连接。我们收到了关于
such anti-spoofing/DDoS mechanisms affecting email and web services in some instances, but did not experience them in our environment.
此类反欺骗/DDoS机制在某些情况下会影响电子邮件和web服务，但在我们的环境中没有体验到。
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Test Scenario | Single | Single | Dual | Dual | Notes |
| (per Test Plan) | ISP, | ISP, | ISP, | ISP, One | |
| | Single | Two | One HN | HN+One | |
| | HN, | HN, | with | User on | |
| | Single | Single | One | ISP-A, | |
| | User | User | User | Two HN | |
| | | on | on | with One | |
| | | Each | Each | User on | |
| | | | ISP | Each on | |
| | | | | ISP-B | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Video streaming | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | fails |
| over Netflix | | | | | behind |
| | | | | | one |
| | | | | | router |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Video streaming | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| over YouTube | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Video streaming | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| over Joost | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Online gaming with | Pass | Pass | Pass | NT | |
| one user | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Peer-to-peer gaming | Pass | Fail | Pass | NT | fails |
| with two users | | | | | when |
| | | | | | both |
| | | | | | users |
| | | | | | NAT to |
| | | | | | same |
| | | | | | address |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| BitTorrent/uTorrent | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | |
| file seeding | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Test Scenario | Single | Single | Dual | Dual | Notes |
| (per Test Plan) | ISP, | ISP, | ISP, | ISP, One | |
| | Single | Two | One HN | HN+One | |
| | HN, | HN, | with | User on | |
| | Single | Single | One | ISP-A, | |
| | User | User | User | Two HN | |
| | | on | on | with One | |
| | | Each | Each | User on | |
| | | | ISP | Each on | |
| | | | | ISP-B | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Video streaming | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | fails |
| over Netflix | | | | | behind |
| | | | | | one |
| | | | | | router |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Video streaming | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| over YouTube | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Video streaming | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| over Joost | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Online gaming with | Pass | Pass | Pass | NT | |
| one user | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Peer-to-peer gaming | Pass | Fail | Pass | NT | fails |
| with two users | | | | | when |
| | | | | | both |
| | | | | | users |
| | | | | | NAT to |
| | | | | | same |
| | | | | | address |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| BitTorrent/uTorrent | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | |
| file seeding | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
(continued)
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| BitTorrent/uTorrent | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| file leeching | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Pandora Internet | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| Radio | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| FTP server | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Web conferencing | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| GTM | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Social Networking | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| Facebook | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Social Networking | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| Webkinz | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| X-Lite for SIP | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| calls with proxy | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| X-Lite for SIP | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | |
| calls no proxy | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Skype text chat | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Skype video chat | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| ooVoo | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| MS Smooth streaming | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Internet Archive | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| video streaming | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Internet Archive | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| audio streaming | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Internet Archive | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| file download | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| iClips | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
(continued)
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| BitTorrent/uTorrent | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| file leeching | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Pandora Internet | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| Radio | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| FTP server | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Web conferencing | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| GTM | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Social Networking | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| Facebook | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Social Networking | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| Webkinz | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| X-Lite for SIP | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| calls with proxy | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| X-Lite for SIP | Fail | Fail | Fail | Fail | |
| calls no proxy | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Skype text chat | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Skype video chat | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| ooVoo | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| MS Smooth streaming | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Internet Archive | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| video streaming | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Internet Archive | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| audio streaming | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| Internet Archive | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| file download | | | | | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
| iClips | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+----------+---------+
NAT444
NAT444
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Test | DS-Lite | Duration | Description | General |
| Scenario | Test | of Test | of Test | Observations |
| (per Test | Results | Performed | Execution | and Notes |
| Plan) | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Video | Pass | 15 min. | | |
| streaming | | | | |
| over Netflix | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Video | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| streaming | | | | |
| over YouTube | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Video | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| streaming | | | | |
| over Joost | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Online | Pass | 15 min. | | |
| gaming with | | | | |
| one user | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Peer-to-peer | Fail | NA | user inside | Users inside |
| gaming with | | | HN1 playing | both HN are |
| two users | | | game against | not able to |
| | | | user inside | connect. The |
| | | | HN2 | error shown |
| | | | | on console, |
| | | | | "The game |
| | | | | session is no |
| | | | | longer |
| | | | | available" |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| BitTorrent | Fail | 12 min. | user on the | |
| or uTorrent | | | Internet is | |
| file seeding | | | able to | |
| | | | download file | |
| | | | using proxy | |
| | | | server and | |
| | | | not | |
| | | | peer-to-peer | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Test | DS-Lite | Duration | Description | General |
| Scenario | Test | of Test | of Test | Observations |
| (per Test | Results | Performed | Execution | and Notes |
| Plan) | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Video | Pass | 15 min. | | |
| streaming | | | | |
| over Netflix | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Video | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| streaming | | | | |
| over YouTube | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Video | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| streaming | | | | |
| over Joost | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Online | Pass | 15 min. | | |
| gaming with | | | | |
| one user | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Peer-to-peer | Fail | NA | user inside | Users inside |
| gaming with | | | HN1 playing | both HN are |
| two users | | | game against | not able to |
| | | | user inside | connect. The |
| | | | HN2 | error shown |
| | | | | on console, |
| | | | | "The game |
| | | | | session is no |
| | | | | longer |
| | | | | available" |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| BitTorrent | Fail | 12 min. | user on the | |
| or uTorrent | | | Internet is | |
| file seeding | | | able to | |
| | | | download file | |
| | | | using proxy | |
| | | | server and | |
| | | | not | |
| | | | peer-to-peer | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
(continued)
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| BitTorrent | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| or uTorrent | | | | |
| file | | | | |
| leeching | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Pandora | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| Internet | | | | |
| Radio | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| FTP server | Pass | 700 Mb | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Web | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| conferencing | | | | |
| (GTM) | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Social | Pass | NA | | |
| Networking | | | | |
| Facebook | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Social | Pass | NA | | |
| Networking | | | | |
| Webkinz | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| X-Lite for | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| SIP calls | | | | |
| with proxy | | | | |
| given | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| X-Lite for | Fail | NA | | |
| SIP calls no | | | | |
| proxy | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Skype text | Pass | NA | | |
| chat | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Skype video | Pass | 20 min. | | |
| chat | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| ooVoo | Pass | 15 min. | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| MS Smooth | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| streaming | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
(continued)
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| BitTorrent | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| or uTorrent | | | | |
| file | | | | |
| leeching | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Pandora | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| Internet | | | | |
| Radio | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| FTP server | Pass | 700 Mb | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Web | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| conferencing | | | | |
| (GTM) | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Social | Pass | NA | | |
| Networking | | | | |
| Facebook | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Social | Pass | NA | | |
| Networking | | | | |
| Webkinz | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| X-Lite for | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| SIP calls | | | | |
| with proxy | | | | |
| given | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| X-Lite for | Fail | NA | | |
| SIP calls no | | | | |
| proxy | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Skype text | Pass | NA | | |
| chat | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Skype video | Pass | 20 min. | | |
| chat | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| ooVoo | Pass | 15 min. | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| MS Smooth | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| streaming | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
(continued)
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Internet | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| Archive | | | | |
| video | | | | |
| streaming | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Internet | Pass | 5 min. | | |
| Archive | | | | |
| audio | | | | |
| streaming | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Internet | Pass | 80 Mb | | |
| Archive file | | | | |
| download | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| iClips | Pass | 10 min. | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
(continued)
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Internet | Pass | 10 min. | | |
| Archive | | | | |
| video | | | | |
| streaming | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Internet | Pass | 5 min. | | |
| Archive | | | | |
| audio | | | | |
| streaming | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| Internet | Pass | 80 Mb | | |
| Archive file | | | | |
| download | | | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
| iClips | Pass | 10 min. | | |
+--------------+---------+-----------+---------------+---------------+
DS-Lite
DS-Lite
The tables below summarize results from the 2010 NAT444 testing at CableLabs, Time Warner Cable, and Rogers Communications. They are included for comparison with 2011 results, documented above.
下表总结了CableLabs、时代华纳有线电视公司和罗杰斯通信公司2010年NAT444测试的结果。包括这些数据是为了与上面记录的2011年结果进行比较。
5.1. Case 1: Single Client, Single Home Network, Single Service Provider
5.1. 案例1：单一客户端、单一家庭网络、单一服务提供商
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Test Case | Results | Notes |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Web browsing | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Email | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| FTP download | pass | performance degraded on very large |
| | | downloads |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| BitTorrent | pass | |
| leeching | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| BitTorrent | fail | |
| seeding | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Video | pass | |
| streaming | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Voice chat | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Netflix | pass | |
| streaming | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Instant | pass | |
| Messaging | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Ping | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Traceroute | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Remote | pass | |
| desktop | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| VPN | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Xbox Live | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Test Case | Results | Notes |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Web browsing | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Email | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| FTP download | pass | performance degraded on very large |
| | | downloads |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| BitTorrent | pass | |
| leeching | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| BitTorrent | fail | |
| seeding | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Video | pass | |
| streaming | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Voice chat | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Netflix | pass | |
| streaming | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Instant | pass | |
| Messaging | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Ping | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Traceroute | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Remote | pass | |
| desktop | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| VPN | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Xbox Live | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
(continued)
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Xbox online | pass | Blocked by some LSNs. |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Xbox network | fail | Your NAT type is moderate. For best |
| test | | online experience you need an open |
| | | NAT configuration. You should enable|
| | | Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) on |
| | | the router. |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Nintendo Wii | pass behind | |
| | one LSN, | |
| | fail behind | |
| | another | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| PlayStation | pass | |
| 3 | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Team | fail | pass behind one LSN, but performance |
| Fortress 2 | | degraded |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| StarCraft II | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| World of | pass | |
| Warcraft | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Call of Duty | pass | performance degraded behind one LSN |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| SlingCatcher | fail | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Netflix | fail | pass behind one LSN |
| Party (Xbox) | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Hulu | pass | performance degraded behind one LSN |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| AIM File | pass | performance degraded |
| Transfer | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Webcam | fail | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| 6to4 | fail | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Teredo | fail | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
(continued)
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Xbox online | pass | Blocked by some LSNs. |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Xbox network | fail | Your NAT type is moderate. For best |
| test | | online experience you need an open |
| | | NAT configuration. You should enable|
| | | Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) on |
| | | the router. |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Nintendo Wii | pass behind | |
| | one LSN, | |
| | fail behind | |
| | another | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| PlayStation | pass | |
| 3 | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Team | fail | pass behind one LSN, but performance |
| Fortress 2 | | degraded |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| StarCraft II | pass | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| World of | pass | |
| Warcraft | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Call of Duty | pass | performance degraded behind one LSN |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| SlingCatcher | fail | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Netflix | fail | pass behind one LSN |
| Party (Xbox) | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Hulu | pass | performance degraded behind one LSN |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| AIM File | pass | performance degraded |
| Transfer | | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Webcam | fail | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| 6to4 | fail | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
| Teredo | fail | |
+--------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+
Case 1
案例1
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Test Case | Results | Notes |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| BitTorrent | pass | |
| leeching | | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| BitTorrent | fail | |
| seeding | | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Video streaming | fail | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Voice chat | pass | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Netflix | pass | performance severely impacted, |
| streaming | | eventually failed |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| IM | pass | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Limewire | pass | |
| leeching | | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Limewire | fail | |
| seeding | | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Test Case | Results | Notes |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| BitTorrent | pass | |
| leeching | | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| BitTorrent | fail | |
| seeding | | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Video streaming | fail | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Voice chat | pass | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Netflix | pass | performance severely impacted, |
| streaming | | eventually failed |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| IM | pass | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Limewire | pass | |
| leeching | | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
| Limewire | fail | |
| seeding | | |
+-----------------+---------+---------------------------------------+
Case 2
案例2
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| Test Case | Results | Notes |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| Limewire leeching | pass | |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| Limewire seeding | fail | |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| uTorrent leeching | pass | |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| uTorrent seeding | fail | |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| Test Case | Results | Notes |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| Limewire leeching | pass | |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| Limewire seeding | fail | |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| uTorrent leeching | pass | |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
| uTorrent seeding | fail | |
+-------------------+---------+-------+
Case 3
案例3
5.4. Case 4: Two Clients, Two Home Networks, Two Service Providers Cross ISP
5.4. 案例4：两个客户端、两个家庭网络、两个服务提供商跨ISP
+------------------+---------+-------+
| Test Case | Results | Notes |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| Skype voice call | pass | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| IM | pass | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| FTP | fail | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| Facebook chat | pass | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| Skype video | pass | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
+------------------+---------+-------+
| Test Case | Results | Notes |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| Skype voice call | pass | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| IM | pass | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| FTP | fail | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| Facebook chat | pass | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
| Skype video | pass | |
+------------------+---------+-------+
Case 4
案例4
Our testing did not focus on mitigating the impact of Carrier-Grade NAT, as described above. As such, mitigation is not the focus of this document. However, there are several approaches that could lessen the impacts described above.
如上文所述，我们的测试并未侧重于减轻载波级NAT的影响。因此，缓解措施不是本文件的重点。然而，有几种方法可以减轻上述影响。
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Challenge | Potential Workaround(s) |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Peer-to-peer | Use a proxy server; [RFC6887] |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Gaming | [RFC6887] |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Negative impact to | Deploy CGN close to the edge of the |
| geolocation services | network; use regional IP and port |
| | assignments |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Logging requirements | Deterministic Logging [DETERMINE]; data |
| for lawful intercept | compression [NAT-LOG]; bulk port logging |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Challenge | Potential Workaround(s) |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Peer-to-peer | Use a proxy server; [RFC6887] |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Gaming | [RFC6887] |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Negative impact to | Deploy CGN close to the edge of the |
| geolocation services | network; use regional IP and port |
| | assignments |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Logging requirements | Deterministic Logging [DETERMINE]; data |
| for lawful intercept | compression [NAT-LOG]; bulk port logging |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
CGN Mitigation
CGN缓解
Other mitigation techniques that are currently being researched, such as [STATELESS], may also improve performance.
目前正在研究的其他缓解技术，如[无状态]，也可能提高性能。
Security considerations are described in [RFC6264] and [RFC6269].
[RFC6264]和[RFC6269]中描述了安全注意事项。
In general, since a CGN device shares a single IPv4 address with multiple subscribers, CGN devices may provide an attractive target for denial-of-service attacks. In addition, as described in [DETERMINE], abuse attribution is more challenging with CGN and requires content providers to log IP address, source port, and time to correlate with Service Provider CGN logs. Also, if a CGN public IP address is added to a blacklist (e.g., for SPAM) or if a server limits the number of connections per IP address, it could negatively impact legitimate users.
一般来说，由于CGN设备与多个订户共享一个IPv4地址，CGN设备可能成为拒绝服务攻击的诱人目标。此外，如[DETERMINE]中所述，CGN的滥用归因更具挑战性，需要内容提供商记录IP地址、源端口以及与服务提供商CGN日志关联的时间。此外，如果将CGN公共IP地址添加到黑名单（例如，垃圾邮件），或者如果服务器限制每个IP地址的连接数，则可能会对合法用户产生负面影响。
[DETERMINE] Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., Sundaresan, K., and O. Vautrin, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments", Work in Progress, July 2013.
[确定]Donley，C.，Grundemann，C.，Sarawat，V.，Sundaresan，K.，和O.Vautrin，“确定性地址映射以减少运营商级NAT部署中的日志记录”，正在进行的工作，2013年7月。
[NAT-LOG] Sivakumar, S. and R. Penno, "IPFIX Information Elements for logging NAT Events", Work in Progress, August 2013.
[NAT-LOG]Sivakumar，S.和R.Penno，“用于记录NAT事件的IPFIX信息元素”，正在进行的工作，2013年8月。
[NAT444] Yamagata, I., Shirasaki, Y., Nakagawa, A., Yamaguchi, J., and H. Ashida, "NAT444", Work in Progress, July 2012.
[NAT444]山形，I.，白崎，Y.，中川，A.，山口，J.，和H.Ashida，“NAT444”，在建工程，2012年7月。
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC1918]Rekhter，Y.，Moskowitz，R.，Karrenberg，D.，Groot，G.，和E.Lear，“私人互联网地址分配”，BCP 5，RFC 1918，1996年2月。
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3056]Carpenter，B.和K.Moore，“通过IPv4云连接IPv6域”，RFC 3056，2001年2月。
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, February 2006.
[RFC4380]Huitema，C.，“Teredo：通过网络地址转换（NAT）通过UDP传输IPv6”，RFC 43802006年2月。
[RFC4689] Poretsky, S., Perser, J., Erramilli, S., and S. Khurana, "Terminology for Benchmarking Network-layer Traffic Control Mechanisms", RFC 4689, October 2006.
[RFC4689]Poretsky，S.，Perser，J.，Erramilli，S.，和S.Khurana，“基准网络层流量控制机制的术语”，RFC 4689，2006年10月。
[RFC6264] Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264, June 2011.
[RFC6264]Jiang，S.，Guo，D.，和B.Carpenter，“IPv6过渡的增量载波级NAT（CGN）”，RFC 62642011年6月。
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269, June 2011.
[RFC6269]福特，M.，布卡达尔，M.，杜兰德，A.，利维斯，P.，和P.罗伯茨，“IP地址共享问题”，RFC 6269，2011年6月。
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6333]Durand，A.，Droms，R.，Woodyatt，J.，和Y.Lee，“IPv4耗尽后的双栈Lite宽带部署”，RFC 63332011年8月。
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April 2013.
[RFC6887]南柴郡Wing，D.，布卡达尔，M.，佩诺，R.，和P.Selkirk，“港口控制协议（PCP）”，RFC 6887，2013年4月。
[STATELESS] Tsou, T., Liu, W., Perreault, S., Penno, R., and M. Chen, "Stateless IPv4 Network Address Translation", Work in Progress, October 2012.
[无状态]邹，T.，刘，W.，Perreault，S.，Penno，R.，和M.Chen，“无状态IPv4网络地址转换”，正在进行的工作，2012年10月。
Thanks to the following people for their testing, guidance, and feedback:
感谢以下人员的测试、指导和反馈：
Paul Eldridge
保罗·埃尔德里奇
Abishek Chandrasekaran
阿比舍克·钱德拉塞卡兰
Vivek Ganti
维韦克·甘蒂
Joey Padden
乔伊·帕登
Lane Johnson
莱恩·约翰逊
Also, thanks to Noel Chiappa for his comments.
另外，感谢Noel Chiappa的评论。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Chris Donley (editor) CableLabs 858 Coal Creek Circle Louisville, CO 80027 USA
Chris Donley（编辑）CableLabs 858美国科罗拉多州路易斯维尔煤溪圈80027
EMail: c.donley@cablelabs.com
EMail: c.donley@cablelabs.com
Lee Howard Time Warner Cable 13241 Woodland Park Rd Herndon, VA 20171 USA
李霍华德时代华纳有线电视美国弗吉尼亚州赫恩登伍德兰公园路13241号，邮编20171
EMail: william.howard@twcable.com
EMail: william.howard@twcable.com
Victor Kuarsingh Rogers Communications 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Canada
Victor Kuarsingh Rogers Communications位于加拿大伦敦市布兰顿迪克西路8200号，邮编：0C1
EMail: victor@jvknet.com
EMail: victor@jvknet.com
John Berg CableLabs 858 Coal Creek Circle Louisville, CO 80027 USA
美国科罗拉多州路易斯维尔市煤溪圈858号John Berg CableLabs 80027
EMail: j.berg@cablelabs.com
EMail: j.berg@cablelabs.com
Jinesh Doshi Juniper Networks 1194 N. Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Jinesh Doshi Juniper Networks 1194 N.Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale，加利福尼亚州94089
EMail: jineshd@juniper.net
EMail: jineshd@juniper.net