



IPv6 operations                                               L. Colitti
Internet-Draft                                                J. Linkova
Updates: 6877, 8585 (if approved)                                 Google
Intended status: Standards Track                               T. Jensen
Expires: 6 September 2026                                     Cloudflare
                                                            5 March 2026


       464XLAT Customer-side Translator (CLAT): Node Behavior and
                            Recommendations
                       draft-ietf-v6ops-claton-16

Abstract

   464XLAT defines an architecture for providing IPv4 connectivity
   across an IPv6-only network.  The solution involves two functional
   elements: a provider-side translator (PLAT) and a customer-side
   translator (CLAT).  This document updates the 464XLAT specification
   (RFC6877) and Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers (RFC8585)
   by further defining CLAT node behavior and IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
   to support IPv4-as-a-Service by providing recommendations for node
   developers on enabling and disabling CLAT.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 September 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.



Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Enabling CLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Disabling CLAT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  CLAT Addresses Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  CLAT IPv4 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  CLAT IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.2.1.  Obtaining CLAT IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.2.2.  CLAT vs non-CLAT IPv6 Addresses Behaviour . . . . . .  10
   7.  CLAT and Multiple Prefixes per Interface  . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Link Renumbering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  MTU Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Updates to Existing RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.1.  Updates to RFC6877  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.2.  Updates to RFC8585  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   12. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   464XLAT is widely deployed in 3GPP networks (as described in
   Section 4.2 of [RFC6877]) where User Equipment (UE) such as mobile
   phones and customer equipment (CE) routers perform the customer-side
   translation (CLAT) function, providing an IPv4 address and default
   route for applications and tethered devices.  Enabling 464XLAT
   allowed mobile operators to transition UE to IPv6-only mode, where UE
   cellular interfaces have only IPv6 addresses, and no forwardable IPv4
   addresses.

   IPv6-only hosts used to be rather uncommon outside of mobile networks
   and datacenters.  Even if a network offers provider-side translator
   (PLAT) functionality in the form of NAT64 [RFC6146], hosts (desktops,



Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   laptops, etc.) still needed the network to provide IPv4 connectivity,
   as otherwise applications which require IPv4 would fail.  However, as
   more and more operating systems outside of the 3GPP world support
   CLAT, it becomes possible to migrate those devices to IPv6-only mode,
   while still providing IPv4-as-a-Service via 464XLAT.  Networks such
   as public Wi-Fi, enterprise networks, or even home networks can
   deploy 464XLAT as described in Section 4.2 of [RFC6877]:

   *  PLAT functions are performed by NAT64.

   *  CLAT functions are performed by the host itself.

   In another variation of the 464XLAT deployment (Section 4.1 of
   [RFC6877]) a CE router is connected to an IPv6-only network and
   provides CLAT functions for IPv4-enabled downstream devices.
   [RFC8585] specifies 464XLAT support requirements for such devices.

   While Section 6 of [RFC6877] discusses implementation considerations
   for the 464XLAT architecture, there is a need for more detailed
   guidance for CLAT implementations.  The increase in IPv6-only
   deployments has provided valuable operational experience, which has
   revealed gaps in existing CLAT requirements.  This document addresses
   these gaps by specifying normative behavior and providing
   recommendations for implementing CLAT functions.  For example, it
   provides guidance on how CLAT nodes (such as a host or a CE router)
   should enable CLAT when connecting to an IPv6-only network and how
   they should react to network changes to minimize negative impact on
   user traffic.  This document complements and updates [RFC6877] and
   [RFC8585].

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Terminology

   This document reuses most of the terminology from Section 2 of
   [RFC6877] and additionally defines the following terms:

   *  CLAT Node: a node (a host or a router) that performs CLAT
      functions by running one or multiple CLAT instances (e.g., one
      CLAT instance per interface).  "CLAT" is also used in this
      document to describe the functionality provided by a CLAT Node as
      a commonly understood shorthand.



Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   *  IPv4-only application: An application that requires the presence
      of an IPv4 address and/or IPv4 default route to operate.  Examples
      include, but are not limited to, applications using IPv4 address
      literals or opening IPv4-only sockets.

   *  IPv6-only network: A network that does not assign IPv4 addresses
      to hosts and facilitates connectivity to IPv4-only destinations
      using NAT64 [RFC6146] as it is required by the 464XLAT
      architecture [RFC6877].

   *  Native IPv4 (such as in 'native IPv4 connectivity' or 'native IPv4
      default gateway'): IPv4 connectivity provided by the network
      without using any form of IPv4-as-a-Service or IP address family
      translation mechanisms (such as 464XLAT).

   *  ULA: Unique Local Addresses [RFC4193].

4.  Enabling CLAT

   For performance and security reasons CLAT SHOULD NOT be enabled
   (unless explicitly configured otherwise) for an interface if the node
   has native IPv4 connectivity over that interface (see Section 5 for
   more details).  Therefore, recommendations provided in this section
   are only applicable to the IPv6-only interfaces of a given node (the
   node has no native IPv4 connectivity via that interface).

   To enable CLAT, an IPv6-only node needs to discover the PLAT-side
   translation IPv6 prefix, also known as the NAT64 prefix (see
   Section 6.3 of [RFC6877]).  For example, the PREF64 Router
   Advertisement (RA) option [RFC8781] provides that information and can
   be used as a strong indication that the network supports PLAT (NAT64)
   functionality.  In some cases, a node might configure its IPv6 stack
   without receiving an RA (for example, via HTTP Capsules, see
   [I-D.ietf-masque-connect-ip-dns]).  Therefore an IPv6-only node
   SHOULD enable CLAT as soon as it receives a PREF64 option from the
   network.

   Discussion: this document does not require that a node MUST enable
   CLAT upon receiving an RA because enabling CLAT by default may be
   undesirable in certain scenarios.  First, in a controlled deployment
   environment, an administrator might explicitly prefer that the node
   not have CLAT enabled.  Second, CLAT is an IPv6 transition technology
   whose operational utility will diminish as IPv4 dependencies become
   less common.  Even where CLAT is supported, default enablement may
   eventually become unnecessary.






Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   A node may have multiple IPv6-only interfaces (for example, a mobile
   phone can be connected to an IPv6-only Wi-Fi network and to an
   IPv6-only mobile network).  The node MAY choose to enable CLAT on a
   subset of its interfaces connected to networks equipped with PLAT.
   In that case the node MUST run an independent, dedicated CLAT
   instance on each interface the node chooses to enable CLAT on.
   Consequently, each CLAT instance MUST install a separate default IPv4
   route on each CLAT-enabled interface.

   If the node does not receive a PREF64 from the network, the node MAY
   use other mechanisms to detect the PLAT presence and obtain the NAT64
   prefix (such as [RFC7050]).  Section 3.1 of [RFC9872] discusses this
   approach in more detail.  When discovering the NAT64 prefix using the
   mechanism defined in [RFC7050], the node MUST follow recommendations
   provided in [RFC8880].  Specifically, the node MUST send the query to
   the DNS servers for the specific network interface per Section 7.1 of
   [RFC8880].  In particular, queries for AAAA resource records of
   "ipv4only.arpa."  MUST be sent to the DNS resolvers provided through
   the specific network interface, not to any resolvers configured
   manually or otherwise.

   Any delay in enabling CLAT on an IPv6-only node would be impactful
   for IPv4-only applications, as such applications cannot benefit from
   464XLAT until CLAT is operational.  Therefore it is desirable that
   the node enables CLAT as soon as network support for PLAT is detected
   while native IPv4 connectivity is not yet detected.  Unless
   configured otherwise, the node MUST enable CLAT if the node has not
   already obtained a non-link-local IPv4 address by the time it
   discovers the NAT64 prefix.  The node SHOULD NOT wait for an explicit
   (DHCP Option 108) or an implicit (DHCP timeouts) indication that
   native IPv4 connectivity is not available.  However, to mitigate
   attacks described in Section 7 of [RFC7050] the node MAY delay
   enabling CLAT if the NAT64 prefix was discovered via DNS [RFC7050]
   only.  Such a delay minimizes the chance of temporary control of
   traffic by an attacker at the expense of delayed IPv4 connectivity
   through CLAT.  The length of this optional delay is implementation
   specific and might, for example, be calculated heuristically based on
   previous observations for the given network attachment.  Nodes
   implementing this delay MAY provide a configuration option to disable
   the delay.  If native IPv4 connectivity becomes available later for a
   given interface, the node MUST disable CLAT for that interface
   (unless explicitly configured to keep it running) as discussed in the
   following section.

   If the node supports multiple IPv4 continuity solutions, the node
   MUST follow recommendations from Section 4 of [RFC7335] to avoid IPv4
   address space conflicts.




Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


5.  Disabling CLAT

   It is possible that after a CLAT instance has started, native IPv4
   connectivity becomes available (e.g., an IPv4 address received via
   DHCP).  If the node is not explicitly configured to prefer CLAT over
   native IPv4 by an administrator, the node MUST disable the CLAT
   instance immediately upon obtaining a native IPv4 default gateway on
   the interface served by that instance.

   Disabling CLAT when native IPv4 connectivity is available can be
   impactful for all applications and traffic flows already utilizing
   CLAT.  However, disabling CLAT is recommended not only from a
   performance perspective, but also from a security point of view.
   Section 11 discusses this aspect in more details.

   Native IPv4 connectivity, which subsequently causes CLAT to be
   disabled, might not be intended by the administrator.  It could
   instead be the result of a network misconfiguration (such as
   accidentally enabling IPv4) or an attack (such as a rogue DHCPv4
   server).  In such cases it might be useful for an administrator to
   receive signals when CLAT turns on or off as well as changes to
   network-received configuration.  Therefore the node SHOULD support
   logging the reason for disabling CLAT and any other changes to CLAT
   configuration or network signals CLAT is acting on to support
   administrator debugging and auditing.  As logging is mostly
   beneficial in managed environments, the logging behaviour SHOULD be
   configurable.  The logging SHOULD be disabled by default to avoid
   performance impacts when the likelihood of anyone consuming the logs
   is low.

   There are some corner cases when an administrator might prefer the
   node to use CLAT even if native IPv4 connectivity is available (e.g.,
   for performance reasons, if IPv4-as-a-Service performs better than
   native IPv4).  This behaviour might be desirable for devices which do
   not move between networks, such as servers or workstations, where the
   administrator might want to have CLAT enabled unconditionally.
   However for the reasons described above such behaviour MUST be
   explicitly enabled by the administrator via configuration and MUST
   NOT be a default behaviour, especially for unmanaged nodes.

6.  CLAT Addresses Considerations










Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


6.1.  CLAT IPv4 Addresses

   A CLAT instance provides an IPv4 address and the default IPv4 route
   to the local node's network stack.  However, the node can also extend
   the network downstream and provides IPv4 network connectivity to
   other connected systems (e.g., tethering).  Those systems can be
   physical (e.g., various clients connected to a CE router), or logical
   (e.g., virtual systems running on a node, while the host system acts
   as a router and performs CLAT).  In all those cases, systems behind a
   CLAT node usually use [RFC1918] addresses.  A CLAT instance can
   either translate these IPv4 addresses statelessly into IPv6 addresses
   using a dedicated IPv6 prefix per [RFC6052], or perform a stateful
   NAT44 between these IPv4 addresses and a dedicated CLAT IPv4 address,
   which is then statelessly translated to a single dedicated IPv6
   address.  In both cases, even with stateful NAT44, translation
   between IPv4 and IPv6 is stateless.

   This section only applies to a single dedicated IPv4 address which a
   CLAT instance uses for providing network connectivity only to local
   applications or using stateful NAT44 when extending network
   connectivity downstream.

   A CLAT instance needs a single IPv4 CLAT address and a single CLAT-
   only IPv6 address (which is distinct from the one or more IPv6
   addresses used by the node running CLAT for its own native IPv6
   connectivity, see Section 6.2.1).  A node providing CLAT functions to
   local applications SHOULD use IPv4 addresses from the dedicated
   192.0.0.0/29 range [RFC7335] because it is reserved for IPv4
   continuity solutions including but not limited to 464XLAT.  Use of
   other source IP addresses is technically possible but might result in
   incorrect assumptions made by other processes relying on the presence
   of a source IPv4 address with a 192.0.0.0/29 prefix to determine if
   an IPv4 continuity solution is being used.  If the node runs multiple
   CLAT instances, the node SHOULD use different local IPv4 addresses
   for each CLAT instance.  This approach limits the number of CLAT
   instances per node to 8, which seems to be more than sufficient for
   typical configurations at the time of this writing.  If in the future
   some deployment scenarios require more than 8 CLAT instances per
   node, a new IPv4 range will be requested from IANA.

   The node MUST NOT send packets to the network from the local CLAT
   addresses.

   The node SHOULD use 255.255.255.255 as a netmask for the CLAT
   address.  That allows all 8 addresses from 192.0.0.0/29 to be used,
   if needed, since this means that each address is treated as being its
   own subnet, rather than being part of a subnet delineated by the
   prefix.



Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   It should be noted that 192.0.0.0/29 is shared between multiple IPv4
   continuity solutions such as 464XLAT and DS-Lite (see [RFC7335]).
   For example, Section 10 of [RFC6333] reserves 192.0.0.1 for the Dual-
   Stack Lite default router.  However, as per Section 4 of [RFC7335],
   the node "MUST NOT enable two active IPv4 continuity solutions
   simultaneously in a way that would cause a node to have overlapping
   192.0.0.0/29 address space" [RFC7335].  Therefore, as long as the
   node is not using DS-Lite, it can use 192.0.0.0/29 for CLAT.

6.2.  CLAT IPv6 Addresses

6.2.1.  Obtaining CLAT IPv6 Addresses

   Section 6.3 of [RFC6877] recommends that a CLAT instance acquires a
   dedicated /64 for translating between IPv4 and IPv6, and only uses a
   single interface IPv6 address if a dedicated prefix is not available
   via DHCPv6-PD [RFC9915].  However, deployments where each node can
   obtain a dedicated /64 just for CLAT are rather uncommon, especially
   in environments such as enterprise networks and Wi-Fi hotspots.
   Quite often the CLAT instance uses a single IPv6 address as a source
   for all IPv4 traffic translated by CLAT.  In particular, if the CLAT
   only provides the IPv4 connectivity to applications local to the node
   (or if the node chooses to perform stateful NAT44) the CLAT instance
   only needs a single CLAT IPv6 address, so obtaining a /64 is
   wasteful.  For instance, a home network that gets a /60 from its ISP
   can only connect up to 15 CLAT devices before it runs out of
   available prefixes.  Even if the node extends IPv4 connectivity
   downstream, the CLAT instance can first perform stateful NAT44 to
   translate all IPv4 addresses used by downstream devices to a single
   IPv4 address, and then perform stateless CLAT.

   This document updates [RFC6877] by relaxing the requirement to
   acquire a dedicated /64 prefix for the purpose of sending and
   receiving statelessly translated packets.  The following
   recommendations are made instead:

   *  If the node is extending IPv4 connectivity downstream, the node
      MUST either:

      -  Obtain a dedicated prefix that satisfies the requirements in
         section 2.2 of [RFC6052] (e.g., via DHCPv6-PD), and statelessly
         translate downstream IPv4 addresses to IPv6 addresses in this
         prefix.

      -  Perform stateful NAT44 from the downstream IPv4 addresses to a
         single IPv4 address and then perform stateless translation of
         that single IPv4 address to a single dedicated IPv6 address.




Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   *  If the CLAT instance only uses a single IPv4 address (including
      scenarios where the node is performing stateful NAT44 to that
      address), the instance SHOULD NOT obtain a dedicated prefix for
      the purpose of sending and receiving statelessly translated
      packets.

   If the CLAT instance does not obtain a dedicated IPv6 prefix, the
   instance MUST obtain a dedicated IPv6 address used exclusively for
   CLAT functions.  A dedicated address is needed because applications
   running on a CLAT node can use an IPv4 socket and an IPv6 socket to
   produce an IPv4 packet and an IPv6 packet that after translation are
   identical, and the CLAT has no way to know whether to translate those
   replies and pass them back to the IPv4 socket or pass them back to
   the IPv6 socket as is.  For example, these two packets sent by the
   node will be identical after translation:

   *  An IPv4 UDP packet from 192.0.0.4:12345 to 203.0.113.8:53

   *  An IPv6 UDP packet from the CLAT IPv6 address, port 12345 to
      [64:ff9b::203.0.113.8]:53

   Similarly, responses (such as ICMP errors) to IPv4 and IPv6 packets
   may be identical when they arrive at the CLAT for translation back to
   IPv4.  For example:

   *  An ICMPv6 Echo Reply packet from 64:ff9b::203.0.113.1 can be a
      response to either an IPv6 ICMP Echo Request to
      64:ff9b::203.0.113.1, or an IPv4 ping to 203.0.113.1, translated
      by a CLAT instance.

   *  An ICMPv6 error packet from a global IPv6 address (not belonging
      to the NAT64 prefix) might be a response to either native IPv6
      traffic from the host, or CLAT traffic (see
      [I-D.ietf-v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source] for more details).

   Therefore, in the absence of dedicated IPv6 addresses, the
   architecture would need additional stateful elements on the client
   side which are not part of 464XLAT as defined in [RFC6877].
   Discussion of such architectures is beyond the scope of this
   document.











Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   If the dedicated CLAT address is obtained via Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration (SLAAC, [RFC4862]), the CLAT instance SHOULD choose
   the interface ID in such a way that the resulting CLAT IPv6 address
   is checksum-neutral.  This means the CLAT IPv6 address has the same
   complement checksum as the local CLAT IPv4 address.  See Section 4.1
   of [RFC6052].  This means that the local IPv4 address needs to be
   assigned/known before the IPv6 address is configured.  Using a
   checksum-neutral CLAT address provides the following benefits:

   *  Better performance as CLAT doesn't need to recalculate the
      checksum.

   *  If a protocol uses the standard Internet checksum [RFC1071], CLAT
      doesn't need to recalculate the checksum.  That improves the
      chances of the protocol working via CLAT even if CLAT is not aware
      of the protocol's semantics.

   To protect user privacy and prevent user tracking through CLAT
   addresses, the node SHOULD generate a different interface identifier
   for the CLAT address when connecting to different networks, even if
   the NAT64 prefix and the local IPv4 CLAT address do not change.  In
   particular, the node SHOULD generate a random CLAT address every time
   the network attachment changes to another network.

6.2.2.  CLAT vs non-CLAT IPv6 Addresses Behaviour

   Reports from the field indicate that some CLAT implementations
   exhibit different behavior for their CLAT IPv6 addresses compared to
   native IPv6 addresses.  While this approach may simplify
   implementation, it often leads to a degraded user experience, as
   described below.  Therefore the node MUST treat its CLAT IPv6
   addresses as any other IPv6 address and comply with [RFC4861] and
   [RFC4862].  In particular:

   *  The node MUST perform Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for each
      dedicated CLAT address (Section 5.4 of [RFC4862]).

      -  Justification: performing DAD minimizes loss of connectivity in
         the unlikely event of address collision.  Additionally, real
         world deployment experience shows that network infrastructure
         devices mandate a DAD packet from the client before enabling
         network access.

   *  The node MUST process unicast and multicast Neighbor Solicitations
      (NSes) for the node's CLAT addresses the same way the node would
      process NSes for a non-CLAT address.  This is to avoid unexpected
      packet loss for applications.




Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


      -  Justification: A simple example is if a node doesn't respond to
         unicast NSes, anytime the first-hop router gets a packet for
         the CLAT address and its Neighbor Cache entry is 'STALE'
         (Section 7.3.2 of [RFC4861]), the Neighbor Unreachability
         Detection process (Section 7.3.3 of [RFC4861]) will delete that
         CLAT address's cache entry.  This forces the address resolution
         process to restart from scratch.  Until resolution finishes,
         traffic for the CLAT address might drop, leading to a degraded
         user experience, especially for applications sensitive to
         jitter and packet loss.

   *  If the node supports Gratuitous Neighbor Advertisements [RFC9131],
      the node SHOULD send them for the CLAT addresses.

      -  Justification: not following this recommendation leads to user-
         visible packet loss when the CLAT instance starts receiving
         traffic after a period of inactivity, or when connected to the
         network for the first time.  The problem is discussed in
         Section 2 of [RFC9131].

   *  The node that has the address registration using DHCPv6 [RFC9686]
      enabled MUST register the CLAT addresses the same way as non-CLAT
      addresses, if the network supports the registration.

      -  Justification: not registering CLAT addresses reduces traffic
         visibility for network operators, which complicates
         troubleshooting and forensics, as discussed in [RFC9686].

7.  CLAT and Multiple Prefixes per Interface

   IPv6 multihoming, particularly when multiple routers on the same link
   advertise different prefixes in Prefix Information Options (PIOs),
   presents a complex and not yet fully resolved challenge.

   When routers on a given link are managed independently (e.g., by
   different ISPs), the resulting set of configuration parameters
   received by a host can be difficult to utilize without creating a
   complex and fragile state machine.  For example, if router_A
   advertises a PIO with prefix_A and PREF64_A, while router_B
   advertises a PIO with prefix_B and PREF64_B, it is crucial that the
   CLAT bundles the information received from each router.  A CLAT
   instance must use PREF64_A and generate a CLAT address from prefix_A,
   sending translated packets to router_A.  Alternatively, it must use
   PREF64_B, generate an address from prefix_B, and send translated
   packets to router_B.  Mixing configuration information from different
   routers (e.g., generating a CLAT address from prefix_A but using
   PREF64_B for translation) can lead to packet loss.  For example, if
   packets with source addresses from prefix_A are sent to router_B,



Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   that router (or the uplink network) might drop the packets according
   to BCP 38 [RFC2827].  Similarly, if the CLAT instance uses PREF64_A,
   advertised by router_A, but those packets are sent to router_B, that
   router might not be configured to translate packets for that prefix.

   The Provisioning Domain (PvD) architecture [RFC7556] provides a
   mechanism for a PvD-aware node to operate correctly in such scenarios
   (see [RFC8801]).  However, at the time of writing PvD support is
   uncommon for host operating systems, and PvD support is not widely
   deployed by network operators.  Therefore this document focuses on
   scenarios when the node is not PvD-aware.

   This document does not aim to define CLAT behavior for every possible
   multi-router/multi-prefix scenario.  Instead, this section provides
   recommendations for common scenarios, leaving numerous corner cases
   out of scope.

   This section assumes that a router is identified by its link-local
   address, used as a source address for RAs.  For example, "detecting
   multiple routers" means that the node received RAs from multiple
   link-local addresses.

   A node discovering multiple routers on the same interface advertising
   the _same PIOs and NAT64 prefix_, SHOULD only create one CLAT
   instance using one of the PIOs to form a CLAT address.

   A node can discover multiple routers on the same interface signalling
   _different PIOs and NAT64 prefixes_. In that case, the node MAY
   create one CLAT instance for each tuple of PIO and NAT64 prefix (both
   PIO and NAT64 prefix in a given tuple MUST be advertised by the same
   router).  Alternatively, the node MAY create only a single CLAT
   instance using the NAT64 prefix discovered through the selected IPv6
   default router and the address formed from a PIO advertised by that
   router.

   When a node creates a single CLAT instance and must choose between
   multiple PIOs, the node SHOULD select a single PIO using the same
   algorithm as for choosing the source address for a destination within
   the selected NAT64 prefix ([RFC6724], updated by
   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update]).

   Discussion: This approach, leveraging the default source address
   selection algorithm (Section 5 of [RFC6724]), typically results in
   the policy table (rule 6) and longest prefix match (rule 8) being
   used for prefix selection.  This ensures CLAT address selection
   aligns with default source address selection for native IPv6 flows,
   offering the following advantages:




Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   *  When using the well-known NAT64 prefix (64:ff9b::/96), non-ULA
      prefixes are preferred over ULA prefixes by default.  This is
      beneficial as ULA source packets may not reach PLAT devices.

   *  For network-specific NAT64 prefixes within the known-local ULA
      range ([I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update]), the ULA prefix is
      preferred.  This can be advantageous in home and enterprise
      environments where administrators intend to perform NAT64 for
      specific source prefixes only.

   *  For network-specific NAT64 prefixes within the operator's global
      non-ULA range, the longest prefix match selects the PIO, ensuring
      CLAT uses the operator's source address for traffic to the
      operator's PLAT in multi-prefix environments.

   *  In managed environments, operators can customize CLAT behavior by
      modifying the policy table if the default prefix selection is
      unsuitable.

   Creating a single CLAT instance significantly simplifies the CLAT
   state machine.  However, this approach may concentrate all traffic
   from that instance onto the same first-hop router and NAT64 device in
   some multihomed topologies.  As traffic shifts from CLAT to native
   IPv6, this drawback becomes less significant and does not justify the
   added complexity of multiple instances.

7.1.  Link Renumbering

   As discussed above, a single CLAT instance per interface, using a
   single PIO, is typically sufficient, even if the link has multiple
   assigned subnets.  However, PIO selection can significantly impact
   user experience during link renumbering.

   [RFC8978] discusses various examples of "flash renumbering", where
   the IPv6 prefix assigned to the link changes without explicit host
   notification.  [I-D.ietf-6man-slaac-renum] and [I-D.link-6man-gulla]
   discuss methods to mitigate the impact of flash renumbering.  These
   methods generally rely on hosts with addresses from both old and new
   prefixes ceasing use of the old prefix and adopting the new prefix.
   For nodes running CLAT instances, this requires disabling instances
   using addresses from the old prefix and creating an instance using an
   address from the new prefix.

   The CLAT node SHOULD use at least the following signals to detect
   link renumbering events:

   *  A prefix used to form the CLAT address becomes deprecated or
      invalid ([RFC4862]).



Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   *  The router (or routers) advertising the PIO used to form the CLAT
      address

      -  has changed its state from being reachable or probably
         reachable to being unknown or suspect (i.e., its neighbor cache
         entry moved to the 'INCOMPLETE' state or ceased to exist, see
         Section 6.3.6 of [RFC4861]).

      -  ceased to be a router (see Section 7.3.3 of [RFC4861]).

   Upon receiving a signal indicating a possible renumbering event, the
   node SHOULD disable the CLAT instance(s) affected by the renumbering,
   and create new instance(s).  In case of implicit signals (provided by
   the Neighbor Unreachability Detection, [RFC4861], rather than by a
   Router Advertisement deprecating or invalidating a prefix), the node
   MAY send Router Solicitations to obtain the most up-to-date network
   configuration information.  When sending Router Solicitations the
   node MUST follow recommendations specified in Section 6.3.7 of
   [RFC4861].  The node MAY react to a potential renumbering event in a
   "make-before-break" manner, when old instances are still running
   until all required information to enable new ones becomes available.

8.  MTU Considerations

   The IPv4 header is 20 bytes long (or longer if IP options are
   present), while the IPv6 header is 40 bytes.  This means that when
   CLAT translates an IPv4 packet to IPv6, it usually adds 20 bytes to
   the packet size.  However, when CLAT translates a fragmented IPv4
   packet, then Fragment Header needs to be added to the resulting IPv6
   packet (Section 4.1 of [RFC7915]).  The length of IPv6 Fragment
   Extension header is 8 bytes (Section 4.5 of [RFC8200]).  Therefore,
   the CLAT instance SHOULD present IPv4-only applications with an IPv4
   MTU which is 28 bytes smaller than the IPv6 MTU of the interface the
   instance is running on because anything higher risks undesirable IP
   fragmentation ([RFC8900]) and anything lower artifically restricts
   packet sizes for no benefit.

9.  Updates to Existing RFCs

9.1.  Updates to RFC6877

   This document updates Section 6.3 of [RFC6877] by relaxing the
   requirement to acquire a dedicated /64 prefix for the purpose of
   sending and receiving statelessly translated packets.  More details
   on the recommended node behaviour can be found in Section 6.2.1.






Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


9.2.  Updates to RFC8585

   This document makes the following changes to Section 3.2.1 of
   [RFC8585]:

   OLD TEXT:

   ===

   464XLAT requirements:

   ===

   NEW TEXT:

   ===

   464XLAT requirements:

   464XLAT-0: The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD follow
   recommendations provided in THIS DOCUMENT (note to the RFC Editor to
   add a reference to this document's RFC number).

   ===

   OLD TEXT:

   ===

   464XLAT-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST implement [RFC7050]
   ("Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis") in
   order to discover the provider-side translator (PLAT) translation
   IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es).

   ===

   NEW TEXT:

   ===

   464XLAT-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST implement [RFC8781]
   ("Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements") and SHOULD implement
   [RFC7050] ("Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address
   Synthesis") in order to discover the provider-side translator (PLAT)
   translation IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es).

   ===




Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   OLD TEXT:

   ===

   464XLAT-6: If the network provides several choices for the discovery/
   learning of the NAT64 prefix, the priority to use one or the other
   MUST follow this order: 1) [RFC7225] and 2) [RFC7050].

   The NAT64 prefix could be discovered by means of the method defined
   in [RFC7050] only if the service provider uses DNS64 [RFC6147].  It
   may be the case that the service provider does not use or does not
   trust DNS64 [RFC6147] because the DNS configuration at the CE (or
   hosts behind the CE) can be modified by the customer.  In that case,
   the service provider may opt to configure the NAT64 prefix by means
   of the option defined in [RFC7225].  This can also be used if the
   service provider uses DNS64 [RFC6147].

   ===

   NEW TEXT

   ===

   464XLAT-6: If the network provides several choices for the discovery/
   learning of the NAT64 prefix, the priority to use one or the other
   MUST follow this order: 1)[RFC7225] 2)[RFC8781] and 3)[RFC7050].

   464XLAT-7: If the IPv6 Transition CE Router performs CLAT functions
   it SHOULD also include the PREF64 option containing the PLAT prefix
   in Router Advertisements ([RFC8781]) sent via the LAN interfaces.  If
   the IPv6 Transition CE Router acts as a DHCP server it SHOULD enable
   DHCP Option 108 ([RFC8925]) processing.  The router SHOULD have a
   configuration knob to disable DHCP Option 108 processing.

   [RFC8781] allows the service provider to signal NAT64 prefix
   independently from DNS64 presence.  At the same time the NAT64 prefix
   could be discovered by means of the method defined in [RFC7050] only
   if the service provider uses DNS64 [RFC6147].  It may be the case
   that the service provider does not use or does not trust DNS64
   [RFC6147] because the DNS configuration at the CE (or hosts behind
   the CE) can be modified by the customer.  In that case, the service
   provider may opt to configure the NAT64 prefix by means of the option
   defined in [RFC7225].  This can also be used if the service provider
   uses DNS64 [RFC6147].

   ===





Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


10.  Operational Considerations

   There are no new operations or manageability requirements for mobile
   networks introduced by this document.  For non-mobile environments,
   such as datacenters, public Wi-Fi, or enterprise networks, the
   operational considerations are documented in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6mops].

11.  Security Considerations

   If a malicious actor spoofs PLAT presence signals (such as an RA with
   PREF64 option) or DNS responses for DNS-based NAT64 prefix detection
   [RFC7050], traffic of IPv4-only applications using CLAT can be
   affected:

   *  If there are no PLAT (NAT64) devices, traffic to NAT64
      destinations would be dropped.

   *  If the attacker intercepts traffic for the NAT64 prefix (e.g., by
      providing the victim with a bogus NAT64 prefix and steering
      traffic for those destinations towards themselves), the attacker
      might be able to perform man-in-the-middle attacks (active attack
      on insecure traffic or hoarding secure traffic for "Harvest Now,
      Decrypt Later" attacks for non-PQC secure traffic, see Section 8
      of [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]).

   Rogue RAs can also disturb traffic to destinations that support both
   IPv4 and IPv6 by causing IPv6 through an attacker's PLAT to be used
   instead of the legitimate network owner's IPv4 path.

   Using the PREF64 RA option to detect PLAT presence and the NAT64
   prefix is less prone to such attacks than DNS-based detection
   ([RFC7050]), as the attacker needs to be on-link and be able to
   bypass layer-2 security features such as RA Guard (see Section 4 of
   [RFC9872] for more details).  Therefore Section 4 recommends the
   PREF64 RA option as a preferred way to detect PLAT presence, in
   accordance with [RFC9872].  If DNS-based detection ([RFC7050]) is
   necessary for other deployment reasons, the risk of local attack can
   be reduced by using encrypted DNS protocols and advertising the
   resolvers using RA options ([RFC9463]).

   The attack vector described above is not specific to 464XLAT
   deployments: security implications of rogue RAs have been discussed
   and documented before (see [RFC6104]).  To prevent such an attack,
   IPv6-enabled networks need to secure RAs, e.g., by deploying RA-Guard
   [RFC6105].  However, networks without explicit (intentional) IPv6
   deployment are inherently IPv6-ignorant, and consequently might lack
   IPv6 security features.  In such networks IPv6-enabled endpoints may
   be inadvertently exposed to link-local IPv6 connectivity.  This



Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   unintended exposure can facilitate PLAT presence signal
   falsification, as described above.  This document mitigates this risk
   by recommending that endpoints disable CLAT when the network provides
   non-link-local IPv4 connectivity, as outlined in Section 5.

   However, the recommended behaviour (disabling CLAT in the presence of
   native IPv4 connectivity) introduces another attack vector: a rogue
   DHCPv4 server.  An attacker can provide the CLAT node with an IPv4
   address and default gateway, causing the node to disable CLAT.
   Similarly to the spoofed PLAT presence case discussed above, a rogue
   DHCP server allows the attacker to implement:

   *  A denial-of-service attack (as the victim's IPv4 traffic will be
      dropped by the network).

   *  A man-in-the-middle attack by acting as an IPv4 default gateway
      for the victim node.

   It should be noted that such attacks are not specific to the CLAT
   scenario, and can occur in IPv4-only or dual-stack networks as well.
   Various well-known Layer 2 security techniques (such as DHCP
   snooping) are available and considered a best practice in
   IPv4-enabled deployments.  To mitigate rogue DHCPv4 server attacks on
   CLAT nodes, network administrators can deploy DHCPv4-related security
   features even if the network is expected to operate in IPv6-only
   mode.

   As discussed, disabling CLAT when native IPv4 connectivity is present
   helps mitigate RA-based attacks but enables DHCPv4-based attack
   vectors if the network lacks Layer 2 security features.  The choice
   between disabling CLAT when native IPv4 connectivity is present and
   keeping it enabled is dictated by the threat model and risk
   assessment.  At the time of this document's publication, it is much
   more likely that an IPv4-only network lacks IPv6 security than an
   IPv6-only network not having IPv4 Layer 2 security features deployed.
   Therefore, this document prescribes that the node SHOULD disable CLAT
   if native IPv4 connectivity is present.  The choice of SHOULD, rather
   than MUST, is determined by considerations of future compatibility:
   nodes operating in environments where rogue RAs are no more likely
   than rogue DHCP servers might choose to keep CLAT enabled, while
   still complying with this specification.










Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


12.  Privacy Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new privacy considerations, but
   there are some existing privacy considerations not documented in
   [RFC6877].  In particular, if a CLAT instance utilizes the same CLAT
   IPv6 address for an extensive period of time or, much worse, uses the
   same interface ID for the CLAT address when connecting to different
   networks, eavesdroppers and information collectors could potentially
   correlate various network activity to the same node.  To mitigate
   that risk and make address-based network-activity correlation more
   difficult, Section 6.2.1 recommends that the node SHOULD generate a
   different interface identifier for the CLAT address when connecting
   to different networks.

   It should be noted that the node's CLAT IPv6 address is only used
   (and visible to observers) when the traffic is carried from the CLAT
   node to the PLAT.  In the vast majority of the cases it means that
   address is never visible outside of the network boundary, so to
   perform address-based network-activity correlation the observer needs
   to be located in the same network as the CLAT node, or the PLAT needs
   to reside outside of the administrative domain, such as a public
   NAT64 service.

13.  IANA Considerations

   This memo does not introduce any requests to IANA.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.







Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.

   [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.

   [RFC7050]  Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
              the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
              RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.

   [RFC7335]  Byrne, C., "IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix", RFC 7335,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7335, August 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7335>.







Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   [RFC7915]  Bao, C., Li, X., Baker, F., Anderson, T., and F. Gont,
              "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 7915,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7915, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7915>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8880]  Cheshire, S. and D. Schinazi, "Special Use Domain Name
              'ipv4only.arpa'", RFC 8880, DOI 10.17487/RFC8880, August
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8880>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8585]  Palet Martinez, J., Liu, H. M.-H., and M. Kawashima,
              "Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support
              IPv4-as-a-Service", RFC 8585, DOI 10.17487/RFC8585, May
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8585>.

   [RFC8781]  Colitti, L. and J. Linkova, "Discovering PREF64 in Router
              Advertisements", RFC 8781, DOI 10.17487/RFC8781, April
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8781>.

   [RFC8925]  Colitti, L., Linkova, J., Richardson, M., and T.
              Mrugalski, "IPv6-Only Preferred Option for DHCPv4",
              RFC 8925, DOI 10.17487/RFC8925, October 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8925>.

   [RFC9131]  Linkova, J., "Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating
              Neighbor Cache Entries on First-Hop Routers", RFC 9131,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9131, October 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9131>.

   [RFC9463]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Reddy.K, T., Ed., Wing, D., Cook, N.,
              and T. Jensen, "DHCP and Router Advertisement Options for
              the Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers (DNR)",
              RFC 9463, DOI 10.17487/RFC9463, November 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9463>.

   [RFC9686]  Kumari, W., Krishnan, S., Asati, R., Colitti, L., Linkova,
              J., and S. Jiang, "Registering Self-Generated IPv6
              Addresses Using DHCPv6", RFC 9686, DOI 10.17487/RFC9686,
              December 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9686>.




Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   [RFC9872]  Buraglio, N., Jensen, T., and J. Linkova, "Recommendations
              for Discovering IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address
              Synthesis", RFC 9872, DOI 10.17487/RFC9872, September
              2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9872>.

   [RFC9915]  Mrugalski, T., Volz, B., Richardson, M., Jiang, S., and T.
              Winters, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
              (DHCPv6)", STD 102, RFC 9915, DOI 10.17487/RFC9915,
              January 2026, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9915>.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc6724-update]
              Buraglio, N., Chown, T., and J. Duncan, "Prioritizing
              known-local IPv6 ULAs through address selection policy",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-
              update-25, 11 August 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-
              rfc6724-update-25>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1071]  Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the
              Internet checksum", RFC 1071, DOI 10.17487/RFC1071,
              September 1988, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1071>.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
              J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
              Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918,
              February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
              May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.

   [RFC6104]  Chown, T. and S. Venaas, "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement
              Problem Statement", RFC 6104, DOI 10.17487/RFC6104,
              February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6104>.

   [RFC6105]  Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
              Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.

   [RFC7225]  Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
              Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.




Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   [RFC7556]  Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain
              Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7556>.

   [RFC8801]  Pfister, P., Vyncke, É., Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., and W.
              Shao, "Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data",
              RFC 8801, DOI 10.17487/RFC8801, July 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8801>.

   [RFC8900]  Bonica, R., Baker, F., Huston, G., Hinden, R., Troan, O.,
              and F. Gont, "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile",
              BCP 230, RFC 8900, DOI 10.17487/RFC8900, September 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8900>.

   [RFC8978]  Gont, F., Žorž, J., and R. Patterson, "Reaction of IPv6
              Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash-
              Renumbering Events", RFC 8978, DOI 10.17487/RFC8978, March
              2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8978>.

   [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]
              Banerjee, A., Reddy.K, T., Schoinianakis, D., Hollebeek,
              T., and M. Ounsworth, "Post-Quantum Cryptography for
              Engineers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              pquip-pqc-engineers-14, 25 August 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pquip-
              pqc-engineers-14>.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-slaac-renum]
              Gont, F., Zorz, J., Patterson, R., and J. Linkova,
              "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address
              Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-6man-slaac-
              renum-13, 15 February 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-
              slaac-renum-13>.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source]
              Lamparter, D. E. and J. Linkova, "Using Dummy IPv4 Address
              and Node Identification Extensions for IP/ICMP translators
              (XLATs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              v6ops-icmpext-xlat-v6only-source-01, 6 November 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-
              icmpext-xlat-v6only-source-01>.








Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   [I-D.ietf-masque-connect-ip-dns]
              Schinazi, D. and Y. Rosomakho, "DNS and PREF64
              Configuration for Proxying IP in HTTP", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-dns-05, 14
              October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-dns-05>.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6mops]
              Buraglio, N., Caletka, O., and J. Linkova, "IPv6-Mostly
              Networks: Deployment and Operations Considerations", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-v6ops-6mops-04, 20
              October 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-v6ops-6mops-04>.

   [I-D.link-6man-gulla]
              Linkova, J., "Using Prefix-Specific Link-Local Addresses
              to Improve SLAAC Robustness", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-link-6man-gulla-01, 3 March 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-link-6man-
              gulla-01>.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair, Ondrej Caletka, Stuart Cheshire,
   Menachem Dodge, Jeremy Duncan, Wesley Eddy, Goetz Goerisch, James
   Harr , Jason Healy, Ed Horley, KAWASHIMA Masanobu, Ted Lemon, Nicolai
   Leymann, George Michaelson, Jordi Palet, Michael Richardson, Nathan
   Sherrard, Dieter Siegmund, Robert Sparks, Dave Thaler, Philipp S.
   Tiesel, Eric Vyncke for the discussions, the input, and all
   contribution.

Authors' Addresses

   Lorenzo Colitti
   Google
   Shibuya 3-21-3,
   Japan
   Email: lorenzo@google.com


   Jen Linkova
   Google
   1 Darling Island Rd
   Pyrmont NSW 2009
   Australia
   Email: furry13@gmail.com, furry@google.com





Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                   claton                       March 2026


   Tommy Jensen
   Cloudflare
   Email: tojens.ietf@gmail.com
















































Colitti, et al.         Expires 6 September 2026               [Page 25]
