<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!--
     draft-rfcxml-general-template-annotated-00

     This template includes examples of most of the features of RFCXML with comments explaining
     how to customise them, and examples of how to achieve specific formatting.

     Documentation is at https://authors.ietf.org/en/templates-and-schemas
-->
<?xml-model href="rfc7991bis.rnc"?>  <!-- Required for schema validation and schema-aware editing -->
<!-- <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?> -->
<!-- This third-party XSLT can be enabled for direct transformations in XML processors, including most browsers -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<!-- If further character entities are required then they should be added to the DOCTYPE above.
     Use of an external entity file is not recommended. -->

<rfc
  xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
  docName="draft-augustyn-intarea-ipref-07"
  ipr="trust200902"
  obsoletes=""
  updates=""
  submissionType="IETF"
  category="std"
  consensus="true"
  xml:lang="en"
  version="3">
<!--
    * docName should be the name of your draft
    * category should be one of std, bcp, info, exp, historic
    * ipr should be one of trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902, pre5378Trust200902
    * updates can be an RFC number as NNNN
    * obsoletes can be an RFC number as NNNN
-->

  <front>
    <title>IP Addressing with References (IPREF)</title> <!-- https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#title-4 -->
    <!--  The abbreviated title is required if the full title is longer than 39 characters -->

    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-augustyn-intarea-ipref-07"/> <!-- https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#seriesinfo -->
    <!-- Set value to the name of the draft  -->

    <author fullname="Waldemar Augustyn" initials="W" role="editor" surname="Augustyn"> <!-- https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#author -->
    <!-- initials should not include an initial for the surname -->
    <!-- role="editor" is optional -->
    <!-- Can have more than one author -->

    <!-- all of the following elements are optional -->
      <address> <!-- https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#address -->
        <email>waldemar@wdmsys.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2026"/> <!-- https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#date -->
    <!--<date year="2023" month="2" day="5"/>--> <!-- https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#date -->
    <!-- On draft submission:
         * If only the current year is specified, the current day and month will be used.
         * If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, the current day will
           be used
         * If the year is not the current one, it is necessary to specify at least a month and day="1" will be used.
    -->

    <area>General</area>
    <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>
    <!-- "Internet Engineering Task Force" is fine for individual submissions.  If this element is
          not present, the default is "Network Working Group", which is used by the RFC Editor as
          a nod to the history of the RFC Series. -->

    <keyword>IPREF</keyword>
    <!-- Multiple keywords are allowed.  Keywords are incorporated into HTML output files for
         use by search engines. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>IP addressing with references, or IPREF for short, is a method for end-to-end
        communication across different address spaces normally not reachable through native
        means. IPREF uses references to addresses instead of real addresses. It allows to
        reach across NAT/NAT6 and across protocols IPv4/IPv6. It is a pure layer 3 addressing
        feature that works with existing network protocols.
      </t>
      <t>IPREF forms addresses (IPREF addresses) made of context addresses and references. These
         IPREF addresses are publishable in Domain Name System (DNS). Any host in any address
         space, including behind NAT/NAT6 or employing different protocol IPv4/IPv6, may publish
         IPREF addresses of its services in DNS. These services will be reachable from any address
         space, including those running different protocol IPv4/IPv6 or behind NAT/NAT6, provided
         both ends support IPREF.
      </t>
      <t>IPREF provides much needed IPv4/IPv6 compatibility for the de facto mixed protocol Internet.
      </t>
    </abstract>

  </front>

  <middle>

    <section><name>Introduction</name>
    <!-- The default attributes for <section> are numbered="true" and toc="default" -->
      <t>Some 25 years ago, it became clear that the 32 bit address space of the IP protocol
        was too small for the growing Internet. An effort to avert the impending 'shortage
        of IP addressees', as the problem was referred to at the time, led to development of
        a new IP protocol named version 6. That protocol, referred to as IPv6, had a larger
        address space thus instantaneously solving the problem. Unfortunately, it created
        another problem. It operated in a different, incompatible address space than the
        existing IP protocol, referred to since as IPv4. In this way, two different address
        spaces, inaccessible to each other, have been created.
      </t>
      <t>Meanwhile, a grass roots effort led to development of another solution to the 'shortage
        of IP addresses' problem that was compatible with existing IPv4 protocol. IPv4 address
        space was extended by rewriting network addresses. That technique, since widely known as
        NAT, effectively created an address space hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy, there
        was the original 32 bit address space. These addresses, at the edge of the hierarchy, were
        translated into and from another set of addresses belonging to so called 'private ranges'.
        These addresses formed new address spaces. They were 32 bit wide but only 24 bit subsets
        were used in practice. Together with the top hierarchy, they produced a 56 bit address
        space for IPv4. Another variant, known as 'carrier grade NAT', added another level of
        hierarchy which extended total address space to 72 bits. This approach averted the shortage
        of IP addresses, but it achieved it at a cost of creating another problem. Namely, it
        created millions of address spaces inaccessible from one another. These new addresses
        were not equal value, they were mostly useful for clients accessing servers within their
        own address spaces or within the space at the top of the hierarchy, commonly referred to
        as 'global IP addresses'.
      </t>
      <t>As a result, the Internet evolved into a collection of a large number of generally
        inaccessible address spaces with two incompatible network protocols.
      </t>
      <t>There were attempts at improving the situation which went in two directions. There
        were attempts aiming to solve access across address spaces within the same protocol,
        typically referred to as 'NAT traversal solutions', and there were attempts aiming to
        bridge IPv4/IPv6 divide. All of these attempts resulted in partial solutions with
        substantial limitations. We could call them nicely 'focused'. The ones dealing with
        IPv4/IPv6, like NAT64/SIIT, were asymmetrical, worked differently in one direction
        than the other, didn't scale well, required global IPv4 addresses, couldn't traverse
        NAT. The ones dealing with NAT traversal, like STUN or NAT-T collection, didn't work
        across protocols IPv4/IPv6, were very limited, dealing mostly with port manipulation,
        never truly solving NAT traversal.
      </t>
      <t>The result of these attempts was a hodgepodge of limited, mostly lacking, poorly
        scaling, half measures which left these millions of different address spaces still
        generally inaccessible.
      </t>
      <t>A closer analysis of these different solutions reveals they suffer great difficulties
        primarily because they try to render necessary address transformations too early. IPREF
        takes a different approach. It is based on the observation that the originating hosts
        do not have to know what the destination addresses are, or what protocol they belong
        to. Thus, IPREF uses references to addresses rather than real addresses. This approach
        works for both NAT traversal as well as for protocol traversal since both problems are
        substantially the same. The one difference between them being having to repackage packets
        on the IPv4/IPv6 boundary. Such repackaging requires sufficient compatibility between the
        protocols which fortunately exists.
      </t>
      <t>With this approach, IPREF does not need to negotiate anything. It does not need any
        external devices, any shared configurations. It does not require allocating of any
        global IP addresses. It does not create any new address spaces, it always refers to
        existing ones. The result is a highly scalable solution that works over NAT,
        NAT6, filters, and across IPv4/IPv6. All of the millions of different address spaces,
        whether behind NAT/NAT6, or across IPv4/IPv6 may now communicate directly using IPREF.
      </t>
      <t>In the background to all the above, there is an ongoing effort to convert every IPv4
        network out there to IPv6. The idea is to run only one protocol everywhere which
        would simplify many issues including address space accessibility while complicating
        other issues perhaps of greater significance. For one, such a return to a single
        address space, single protocol environment runs against a broad, long running trend
        of diverging interest of the Internet providers versus the interests of their customers.
        The appearance of such ideas like NAT6 is symptomatic which should give the proponents
        of IPv6 everywhere a pause. Indeed, the customers of the Internet fiercely defend their
        independence which is the primary reason why the transition to IPv6 has been resisted
        for so long.
      </t>
      <t>In this context, IPREF offers a compelling alternative. Its ability to make IPv4
        and IPv6 compatible allows the ISPs to deploy IPv6 Internet without replacing
        customer networks. In this way ISPs get what they want and their customers also get
        what they want. Thus the Internet may evolve into a compatible Multiprotocol Internet.
        It will not only stop massive replacements, it will also provide a path for future upgrades
        to IPv6, where a new protocol could be introduced gradually while allowing the customers
        to keep their networks.
     </t>

      <section anchor="requirements">
      <!-- anchor is an optional attribute -->
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>
          <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in
          all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
      <!-- The 'Requirements Language' section is optional -->

      <section anchor="terminology"><name>IPREF Terminology</name>
        <t>IPREF - short name referring to technology described in this document, pronounced I-P-REF</t>
        <t>context address - a native address component of an IPREF address</t>
        <t>reference - an unsigned integer component of an IPREF address</t>
        <t>IPREF address - addressing unit used with IPREF, a combination of a context address and a reference</t>
        <t>encoding network - network representing IPREF addresses in native form</t>
        <t>IPREF gateway - a device, or software component, that performs IPREF address rewriting</t>
      </section>

    </section> <!-- ^^ Introduction ^^ -->

    <section><name>IPREF Overview</name>

      <t>IPREF is a method for communication across different address spaces, that is those
        that cannot be reached through native means of a network protocol. Examples of such
        address spaces are networks behind NAT, NAT6, or filters, as well as networks employing
        different network protocols such as IPv4/IPv6.
      </t>
      <t>Key characteristics of IPREF:</t>
      <ul>
        <li>massively scalable</li>
        <li>cross protocol, cross address space (such as NAT/NAT6)</li>
        <li>strictly layer 3 (no port manipulation, all ports available)</li>
        <li>addresses publishable in DNS</li>
        <li>no need for external translators or shared configurations</li>
        <li>no need for global IPv4 addresses</li>
        <li>no dual stacks</li>
      </ul>

      <section><name>References</name>

        <t>A common problem with cross address space communication is to decide how to deal with
          addressing. Communicating peers cannot interpret each other's addresses therefore some
          other method of directing packets to proper destinations must be devised.
        </t>
        <t>IPREF solves this problem by using references to addresses rather than actual
          addresses. The references are then evaluated within each address space to render proper
          native addresses suitable for forwarding. The evaluation is performed at each address
          space independently. As a result the same references render different addresses at
          different address spaces.
        </t>
        <t>References are unsigned integers meaningful only in the context of the address space
          they pertain to. Local administrators allocate values to references and assign their
          meaning. They may divide a reference into fields for any purpose believed useful. For
          example, the fields may reflect different sources of allocations, or provide extra
          security bits, or provide load balancing hints, etc. Peers are unaware of these fields
          and treat references as opaque values.
        </t>

      </section>  <!-- ^^ References ^^ -->

      <section><name>IPREF Addresses</name>

        <t>IPREF uses references to addresses in lieu of actual addresses. Such references need
          context to be meaningful, therefore IPREF uses addressing units that combine a context
          address, which MUST be a native address, and a reference. These addressing units are
          called IPREF addresses.
        </t>

        <figure anchor="ipref-address"><name>IPREF address</name>
          <artwork type="ascii-art"> <![CDATA[
         ┌───────────────────┬───────────────────┐
         │  context address  │     reference     │
         └───────────────────┴───────────────────┘
               198.51.100.11 + 700
            2001:db8::abc:11 + 700
          ]]> </artwork>
        </figure>

        <t>The context address portion of an IPREF address is an address within adjacent address
          space. Typically, this is the Internet, so this is usually an Internet address of an
          edge router of the source or destination network. Other addresses known to the network
          may also be used.
        </t>
        <t>References are allocated by administrators of respective address spaces. The references
          may only refer to hosts from these address spaces. Thus, the destination references are
          allocated by the administrators of the destination networks while the source references
          are allocated by the administrators of the source networks. There are no conflicts and
          there is no need for negotiations. Each peer defines their own references and accepts
          peer references as opaque values.
        </t>
        <t><xref target="ipref-address"/> shows two examples of IPREF addresses. In the notation,
          a plus sign '+' separates context address from the reference. A packet carries two
          IPREF addresses: a source IPREF address and a destination IPREF address.
        </t>
        <t>IPREF addresses are publishable in DNS.
        </t>

      </section>  <!-- ^^ IPREF Addresses ^^ -->

      <section><name>Gateways and Encoding Networks</name>

        <t>IPREF addresses are placed in packets by gateways. The gateways must be installed at
          each address space participating in IPREF communication. Intermediate address spaces,
          such as the Internet, don't need gateways.
        </t>
        <t>The gateways inject and remove IPREF addresses as packets leave and enter local
          networks. They also encode IPREF addresses for internal use as local network protocols
          only understand native addresses. The encoding networks are local private networks to
          which the gateways map IPREF addresses. For example, IPv4 networks could use a 10/8
          network while IPv6 networks could use an fd::/64 network for the purpose. For local
          hosts, these encoded addresses represent peers they communicate with. The peers appear
          as if on the local network. This is common with cross protocol communication or more
          generally with cross address space communication. The gateways replace these encoded
          addresses with IPREF addresses when sending packets outside local networks.
        </t>
        <t>An IPREF gateway is essentially a router. It is referred to as a gateway to emphasize
          its role in cross address space communication.
        </t>

      </section>  <!-- ^^ Gateways and Encoding Networks ^^ -->

      <section><name>Traversing Address Spaces</name>

        <t>Similarly to standard IP protocols, IPREF packets travel through address spaces based
           on source and destination IPREF addresses. After all, they utilize existing protocols
           for transport thus they must obey the same rules. The IPREF addresses are interpreted
           at each address space to render native addresses for forwarding.
        </t>

        <figure anchor="traversing-address-spaces"><name>traversing address spaces</name>
          <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │    Internet    │    Network B

src:  2001:db8::9 + 1579   2001:db8::9 + 1579   2001:db8::9 + 1579
dst:  2001:db8::8 + 2466   2001:db8::8 + 2466   2001:db8::8 + 2466

           🡳                    🡳                    🡳

src:  172.17.1.75          2001:db8::9          fdee:eeee::5951
dst:  10.128.48.62         2001:db8::8          2001:db8:b::28


 ┌──────┐        IPv4     │      IPv6      │     IPv6        ┌──────┐
 │ host │.75┃                                            ┃   │ host │
 │  A1  ├───┨  ┏━━━━━━━┓  │                │  ┏━━━━━━━┓  ┠───┤  B4  │
 └──────┘   ┃  ┃ IPREF ┃:9                  :8┃ IPREF ┃  ┃   └──────┘
            ┠──┨ g-way ┠─────  Internet  ─────┨ g-way ┠──┨
 ┌──────┐   ┃  ┃  GWA  ┃                      ┃  GWB  ┃  ┃:28┌──────┐
 │ host ├───┨  ┗━━━━━━━┛  │                │  ┗━━━━━━━┛  ┠───┤ host │
 │  A3  │   ┃                                            ┃   │  B6  │
 └──────┘                 │                │                 └──────┘

          ]]></artwork>
        </figure>

        <t>For example, in <xref target="traversing-address-spaces"/>, if host A1 wanted to
          send a packet outside of its own address space to host B6, it would need a source
          IPREF address for itself and a destination IPREF address for B6.
        </t>
        <t>The destination IPREF address of host B6, presumably a server, would be allocated
          by the admin of network B where B6 resides. It would normally be advertised in DNS.
          The source IPREF address of A1, presumably a client, would normally be allocated
          dynamically by the local IPREF gateway.
        </t>
        <t>As packets travel from source to destination, the following takes place:</t>
        <ul>
          <li>At network A, the IPREF source address is interpreted as a native address of host
            A1. The destination IPREF address is interpreted as some local private address on
            the encoding network. The encoding allows host A1 to place native addresses in the
            packet. The IPREF gateway will replace both source and destination addresses with
            their IPREF equivalents. It will also repackage IPv4 packets into IPv6 since the next
            address space is IPv6.
          </li>
          <li>In the transient address space, the Internet, IPREF addresses are interpreted
            as well even though the network is unaware of that. In the transient networks
            only context addresses are used while the references are ignored. This is
            accomplished by placing context addresses (which must be native) in the respective
            source and destination fields of the native network protocol. In this way, transient
            networks, such as the Internet, don't need to know anything about IPREF.
          </li>
          <li>At network B, the IPREF source address is interpreted as some local private address
            on the encoding network. The IPREF destination address is interpreted as the native
            address of host B6. In this way, a packet originating at an IPv4 host A1 reaches an
            IPv6 host B6.
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>On the way back, source and destination addresses are reversed and their interpretation
          follows the same pattern, thus a reply packet originating at an IPv6 host B6 reaches an
          IPv4 host A1.
        </t>
        <t>In the example, network A may be IPv4 or IPv6, the Internet may be IPv4 or IPv6, and
          network B may be IPv4 or IPv6. In any combination, a packet traveling through these
          address spaces would be processed in the same manner and it would reach its destination
          in the same way.
        </t>

      </section>  <!-- ^^Traversing Address Spaces^^ -->

      <section><name>Traversing Address Spaces in Detail</name>

        <figure anchor="traversing-address-spaces-in-detail"><name>traversing address spaces in detail</name>
          <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │    Internet    │    Network B

 ┌──────┐        IPv4     │      IPv6      │     IPv6        ┌──────┐
 │ host │.75┃                                            ┃   │ host │
 │  A1  ├───┨  ┏━━━━━━━┓  │                │  ┏━━━━━━━┓  ┠───┤  B4  │
 └──────┘   ┃  ┃ IPREF ┃:9                  :8┃ IPREF ┃  ┃   └──────┘
            ┠──┨ g-way ┠─────  Internet  ─────┨ g-way ┠──┨
 ┌──────┐   ┃  ┃  GWA  ┃                      ┃  GWB  ┃  ┃:28┌──────┐
 │ host ├───┨  ┗━━━━━━━┛  │                │  ┗━━━━━━━┛  ┠───┤ host │
 │  A3  │   ┃                                            ┃   │  B6  │
 └──────┘                 │                │                 └──────┘


Internet ifc: 2001:db8::9                 Internet ifc: 2001:db8::8
Local net A:  172.17.1.0/24               Local net B:  2001:db8:b::/64
Encoding net: 10.128.0.0/10               Encoding net: fdee:eeee::/64
Host A1:  172.17.1.75                     Host B6:  2001:db8:b:28
DNS A1:   (none)                          DNS B6:   2001:db8::8 + 2466
          ]]></artwork>
        </figure>

        <t>Let's say an IPv4 host A1 wants to send a packet to an IPv6 host B6:</t>
        <ol>
          <li><t>Host A1 finds out the address of host B6</t>
            <t>Host A1 issues a DNS query for host B6. The query goes through the local resolver.
              Local resolver receives a response:
            </t>
            <sourcecode>B6 has address: 2001:db8::8 + 2466</sourcecode>
            <t>Since local hosts don't understand IPREF addresses, the resolver asks gateway GWA to
              allocate an encoded address for it. The gateway responds:
            </t>
            <sourcecode>map: 2001:db8::8 + 2466  =  10.128.48.62</sourcecode>
            <t>The resolver returns the encoded result of the DNS query to host A1:</t>
            <sourcecode>B6 has address:  10.128.48.62</sourcecode>
          </li>
          <li><t>Host A1 sends a packet out to B6</t>
            <t>Host A1 places its own address as source and the address of host B6 returned by the
              local resolver as destination.
            </t>
            <sourcecode>packet out: | 172.17.1.75 | 10.128.48.62 | payload |</sourcecode>
          </li>
          <li><t>Packet arrives at gateway GWA</t>
            <sourcecode>packet in:  | 172.17.1.75 | 10.128.48.62 | payload |</sourcecode>
            <t>The gateway notices that it does not have mapping for the source address, so it
              creates one on the fly:
            </t>
            <sourcecode>map: 172.17.1.75 = 2001:db8::9 + 1579</sourcecode>
            <t>It replaces source address with the just created corresponding IPREF address. It
              replaces encoded destination address with the original IPREF address returned by
              the DNS query. It also repackages IPv4 packet into IPv6 since the Internet is IPv6.
            </t>
            <sourcecode>packet out: | 2001:db8::9 + 1579 | 2001:db8::8 + 2466 | payload |</sourcecode>
          </li>
          <li><t>Packet arrives at gateway GWB</t>
            <sourcecode>packet in:  | 2001:db8::9 + 1579 | 2001:db8::8 + 2466 | payload |</sourcecode>
            <t>The gateway notices that it does not have encoding for the source IPREF address,
              so it creates one on the fly:
            </t>
            <sourcecode>map: 2001:db8::9 + 1579 = fdee:eeee::5951</sourcecode>
            <t>It replaces source IPREF address with the just created local encoded address. It
              replaces destination IPREF address with the local address of host B6.
            </t>
            <sourcecode>packet out: | fdee:eeee::5951 | 2001:db8:b::28 | payload |</sourcecode>
          </li>
          <li><t>Packet arrives at host B6</t>
            <sourcecode>packet in:  | fdee:eeee::5951 | 2001:db8:b::28 | payload |</sourcecode>
            <t>Host B6 recognizes destination address as its own and consumes the packet. OS passes
              the packet to an application implied by layer 4.
            </t>
          </li>
          <li><t>Host B6 sends a reply back to A1</t>
            <t>Host B6 gets a reply payload from the application, swaps source and destination
              addresses, and sends the packet back to A1.
            </t>
            <sourcecode>packet out: | 2001:db8:b::28 | fdee:eeee::5951 | payload |</sourcecode>
          </li>
          <li><t>Packet arrives at gateway GWB</t>
            <sourcecode>packet in:  | 2001:db8:b::28 | fdee:eeee::5951 | payload |</sourcecode>
            <t>The gateway replaces local source address with corresponding IPREF address previously
              allocated and advertised in DNS. It replaces destination local encoded address with
              the corresponding IPREF address from mapping created earlier.
            </t>
            <sourcecode>packet out: | 2001:db8::8 + 2466 | 2001:db8::9 + 1579 | payload |</sourcecode>
          </li>
          <li><t>Packet arrives at gateway GWA</t>
            <sourcecode>packet in:  | 2001:db8::8 + 2466 | 2001:db8::9 + 1579 | payload |</sourcecode>
            <t>The gateway replaces source IPREF address with the corresponding local encoded
              address from mapping created earlier. It replaces destination IPREF address with
              the local address of host A1. It also realizes that the local network is IPv4, so
              it repackages the packet into IPv4.
            </t>
            <sourcecode>packet out: | 10.128.48.62 | 172.17.1.75 | payload |</sourcecode>
          </li>
          <li><t>Packet arrives at host A1</t>
            <sourcecode>packet in:  | 10.128.48.62 | 172.17.1.75 | payload |</sourcecode>
            <t>Host A1 recognizes destination address as its own and consumes the packet. OS passes
              the packet to the application that sent the original packet.
            </t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>At this point any missing mappings have been allocated. Subsequent packet exchange
          continues without additional allocations.
        </t>

      </section>  <!-- ^^Traversing Address Spaces in Detail^^ -->

      <section><name>Embedding References in IP Packets</name>

        <t>References are network layer entities therefore the most natural place for embedding
          them would be network layer headers, such as IPv4 options or IPv6 extension headers.
        </t>
        <t>Unfortunately, many Internet Service Providers drop packets with uncommon options
          and extension headers for various reasons. Even if they don't, routers tend to put them
          on a slow processing path resulting in poor performance. For that reason, the most
          reliable way to embed references is to place them in the payload. One common technique
          of accomplishing this is tunneling where references could be made a part of the payload.
        </t>

        <section><name>IPv4 Option</name>
          <t>With IPv4, references may be embedded in an IPv4 header option <xref target="RFC791"/>.
             It would be a new option type. It would contain an octet with option type and option
             number, an octet with length, and two octets reserved for possible future use while
             padding to four octet boundary. The source and destination references would then follow.
          </t>
          <t>A new option number would be registered with IANA. Until then, experimental option, 30,
             could be used.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section><name>IPv6 Extension Header</name>
          <t>With IPv6, references may be embedded in an IPv6 extension header <xref target="RFC8200"/>.
             It would be a new header type. It would contain an octet with next header type value,
             an octet with length, and two octets reserved for possible future use. This would be
             followed by four octets of padding to 8 octet boundary. Padding octets would not be
             intended for any future use. The source and destination references would then follow.
          </t>
          <t>A new protocol type would be registered with IANA. Until then, experimental protocol,
             254, could be used.
          </t>
        </section>

        <section><name>UDP Tunnel</name>
          <t>Placing references in a UDP tunnel works for both IPv4 and IPv6. The references
             would be embedded between the UDP header and the packet payload. In addition, a
             tunnel information record would be added. The order of items would be as follows:
          </t>
          <ul spacing="compact" empty="true">
            <li>UDP header</li>
            <li>Tunnel information record</li>
            <li>Source and destination references</li>
            <li>Packet payload</li>
          </ul>
          <t>The tunnel information record would contain the value of TTL and the protocol
            number plus any bit fields necessary for the tunnel operation.
          </t>
          <t>The tunnel would operate at port 1045. This value would be registered with IANA.
          </t>
        </section>

      </section>  <!-- ^^Embedding References^^ -->

      <section><name>Name Resolution Support</name>

        <t>IPREF gateways provide mapping support for name resolution services such as DNS. When
          resolving queries on behalf of local hosts, all returned IPREF addresses must be mapped
          to native addresses of the local network protocol. Typically, a subnet on a private
          network is dedicated for the purpose. That subnet is used just for encoding, there are
          no real hosts with these addresses. There may be a need to standardize on how resolvers
          communicate with gateways to obtain such mappings.
        </t>

      </section>  <!-- ^^ Name Resolution Support ^^ -->

    </section>  <!-- ^^ IPREF Overview ^^ -->

    <section><name>DNS with IPREF</name>

      <t>IPREF takes full advantage of DNS <xref target="RFC1035"/>. Local networks may
        publish IPREF addresses of any services hosted on local networks. Standard
        unmodified DNS servers may be used for the purpose.
      </t>

      <figure anchor="dns-with-ipref"><name>DNS with IPREF</name>
        <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │
                                ╔═══════╗
 ┌──────┐                 │     ║ publc ║
 │ host │.75┃      ┌────────────╢  DNS  ║    A3  AA  2001:db8::9 + 1733
 │  A1  ├───┨  ┏━━━┷━━━┓  │     ║ servr ║          ────────>
 └──────┘   ┃  ┃ IPREF ┃:9      ╚═══════╝
            ┠──┨ g-way ┠─────
 ┌──────┐   ┃  ┃  GWA  ┃
 │ host ├───┨  ┗━━━┯━━━┛  │    Internet
 │  A3  │   ┃      │                                     ╔═══════╗
 └──────┘          │      │                              ║ other ║
                   │                                     ║ ╔═══════╗
     ▲         ╔═══╧═══╗  │                              ║ ║ other ║
     │         ║ local ║          <───────               ╚═║ ╔═══════╗
     ╰────     ║  DNS  ║     B6  AA  2001:db8::8 + 2466    ║ ║ other ║
               ║ rslvr ║                                   ╚═║  DNS  ║
               ╚═══════╝  │                                  ║ servr ║
                                                             ╚═══════╝
        ]]></artwork>
      </figure>

      <t>For the resolution of DNS names, a modified recursive resolver is required because IPREF
        addresses are different from IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The resolver must recognize them
        in addition to native IP addresses.
      </t>

      <section><name>DNS Records</name>

        <t>IPREF addresses are unlike well known IPv4 addresses or IPv6 addresses. These addresses
          consist of two components which must be considered as a single address entity. It is not
          possible to separate references from their companion context addresses. For that reason,
          there is a need for a new resource record type. The new record type is tentatively called
          AA. This record type has not been registered yet. Until such time, a TXT record may be
          used instead. The TXT record simply holds a textual representation of an AA record.
        </t>
        <t> Here are some examples of what the records might look like:
        </t>

        <sourcecode type="dns-rr"> <![CDATA[
    Host-B4     AA      198.51.100.22 + 400
    Host-A5     AA      net-A + 500
    Host-A5     AA      2001:db8::abc:11 + 700
    Host-A5     TXT     "AA net-A + 500"
        ]]> </sourcecode>

        <t>The IP portion may be provided numerically or as a domain name. The format for the
          reference would allow unsigned decimal integers as well as unsigned hex integers.
          Other formats may be defined as well.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section><name>Local Network Resolvers</name>
        <t>Local network resolvers must recognize IPREF addresses returned by DNS queries. They
          must also be capable of encoding them into native IP addresses in consultation with
          IPREF gateways. This is shown in <xref target="dns-with-ipref"/> as a line connecting
          local DNS resolver with IPREF gateway GWA. Encoding is needed because local hosts do
          not understand IPREF addresses. Instead, local hosts use encoded equivalents which
          are then replaced with the actual IPREF addresses by the gateways. There may be a need
          to standardize on how resolvers communicate with gateways.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section><name>Detecting Published IPREF Addresses</name>
        <t>All published IPREF addresses must be communicated to local IPREF gateways so that
          they can properly map destination addresses of incoming packets. This is reflected
          in <xref target="dns-with-ipref"/> by a line connecting public DNS server with IPREF
          gateway GWA. There is a number of ways to accomplish this. There may be a need to
          standardize on how this should be done to allow interoperability between different
          gateways and different DNS servers.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section><name>DNSSEC compatibility</name>
        <t>IPREF address records may be protected by DNSSEC. Packets leaving local networks
          contain the exact addresses returned from DNS. Internally, local hosts use encoded
          versions of these addresses which complicates things a little but the gateways replace
          them with the original IPREF addresses listed in DNS before sending packets out of the
          local network.
        </t>
      </section>

      <section><name>IPREF Address Literals</name>
        <t>DNS is immensely useful and it is considered a necessary component of IP networking.
          But IP networking does not relay on DNS. It works just fine with IP address literals
          entered and distributed manually. Similarly, IPREF does not rely on DNS. It is possible
          to use IPREF address literals in a manner similar to IP. The addresses would still
          need to be encoded by the gateways. They would be entered manually at gateways first,
          then their encoded equivalents would be distributed to hosts, possibly as entries in
          /etc/hosts files.
        </t>
      </section>

    </section>  <!-- ^^ DNS with IPREF ^^ -->

    <section><name>Multiprotocol Internet</name>

      <section><name>Bridging compatibility divide</name>

        <t>IPREF is a general purpose technology that can bridge the divide between incompatible
          protocols and between unreachable address spaces. This is the network world we
          live in. There are two public Internets and millions of address spaces. It will
          stay like this for decades to come. IPREF addresses this situation. In addition
          to IPv4 and IPv6, new protocols are being developed, such as those presented in
          various IRTF groups. Some are specialized, some are intended for wider use. Each
          of them create their own address spaces with a need to exist within wider networking
          system. IPREF can bridge these new technologies with existing IPv4 and IPv6 Internets
          allowing them to strive.
        </t>

      </section>  <!-- ^^ Bridging compatibility divide ^^ -->

      <section><name>Using IPREF for adoption of IPv6 Internet</name>

        <t>Using IPREF for adoption of IPv6 Internet offers significant benefits to both the
          enterprises and individual users as well as to the Internet service providers and
          operators.
        </t>
        <ul>
          <li>only pure IPv6 Internet (no need for IPv4 services or translators)</li>
          <li>only pure IPv4 or pure IPv6 local networks (no dual stacks)</li>
          <li>no need for global IPv4 addresses</li>
          <li>elimination of NAT/NAT6/CGNAT (all hosts reachable, all ports available)</li>
          <li>plays nicely with DNSSEC</li>
          <li>adoption at own pace</li>
          <li>massively scalable</li>
          <li>dramatic speed up of IPv6 Internet adoption</li>
          <li>huge cost savings</li>
          <li>support for emerging new network technologies</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The adoption may involve merely a switch to the IPv6 Internet in preparation for the take
          down of the IPv4 Internet. Or, it may involve deployment of IPv6 local networks. These two
          tasks are independent. It is possible to keep local network unchanged and only switch to IPv6
          Internet. In this case local IPv4 communication will go over IPv6 Internet reaching remote
          IPv4 or IPv6 destinations. It is also possible to deploy local IP networks while keeping IPv4
          Internet which may be useful in mixed environment. In either case, very little to no
          coordination is needed with the peers. This alone is a huge advantage of the IPREF technology.
        </t>
        <t>The adoption process takes advantage of IPREF's flexibility to operate in all possible
          combinations of address spaces:
        </t>
        <sourcecode type="dns-rr"> <![CDATA[
          network A   Internet   Network B

    1       IPv4      IPv4      IPv4        -- common starting point
    2       IPv4      IPv4      IPv6
    3       IPv6      IPv4      IPv4           (same as 2)
    4       IPv6      IPv4      IPv6
    5       IPv4      IPv6      IPv4        -- common with IPv6 Internet
    6       IPv4      IPv6      IPv6
    7       IPv6      IPv6      IPv4           (same as 6)
    8       IPv6      IPv6      IPv6
        ]]> </sourcecode>
        <t>Because the three address spaces - network A, Internet, and network B - are processed
          independently by IPREF, the adoption process at local networks is decoupled from
          adoption efforts at peer networks. It is also decoupled from introducing any new
          protocols at the Internet itself.
        </t>
        <ol>
          <li><t>Common starting point</t>
            <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │    Internet    │    Network B

             ┏━━━━━━━┓    │      IPv6      │    ┏━━━━━━━┓
             ┫ IPREF ┣                          ┫ IPREF ┣
   IPv4      ┃ g-way ┃    │      IPv4      │    ┃ g-way ┃      IPv4
  ════════╗  ┫  GWA  ┣  ╔════════════════════╗  ┫  GWB  ┣  ╔════════
          ║  ┗━━━━━━━┛  ║ │                │ ║  ┗━━━━━━━┛  ║
          ╚═════════════╝                    ╚═════════════╝
                          │                │
            ]]></artwork>
            <t>IPREF gateways are installed but not used. All connectivity is pure IPv4.
            </t>
          </li>

          <li><t>Switching traffic to IPREF</t>
            <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │    Internet    │    Network B

             ┏━━━━━━━┓    │      IPv6      │    ┏━━━━━━━┓
             ┫ IPREF ┣                          ┫ IPREF ┣
   IPv4      ┃ g-way ┃    │      IPv4      │    ┃ g-way ┃      IPv4
  ═══════════┫  GWA  ┣══════════════════════════┫  GWB  ┣═══════════
             ┗━━━━━━━┛    │                │    ┗━━━━━━━┛

                          │                │
            ]]></artwork>
            <t>IPREF gateways are configured. References are assigned. Traffic goes through the
              gateways. All services subject to adoption of the IPv6 Internet are now accessed
              via IPREF. Traffic between gateways remains over IPv4 Internet until both ends
              connect to IPv6 Internet. This does not affect deployment of local IPv6 networks.
            </t>
          </li>

          <li><t>Deploying local IPv6 networks</t>
            <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │    Internet    │    Network B

   IPv6      ┏━━━━━━━┓    │      IPv6      │    ┏━━━━━━━┓
  ═══════════┫ IPREF ┣╌ ╌ ╌ ╌                   ┫ IPREF ┣
   IPv4      ┃ g-way ┃    │      IPv4      │    ┃ g-way ┃      IPv4
  ═══════════┫  GWA  ┣══════════════════════════┫  GWB  ┣═══════════
             ┗━━━━━━━┛    │                │    ┗━━━━━━━┛

                          │                │
            ]]></artwork>
            <t>Local IPv6 networks may be set up without waiting for IPv6 Internet. These
              are pure IPv6 networks, no dual stacks. Connectivity between local IPv4/IPv6
              networks is provided by the same IPREF gateways that connect to remote peers.
              Clients located on local IPv6 networks can reach servers located on local IPv4
              networks or on remote IPv4 or IPv6 networks. Similarly, servers on local IPv6
              network can be reached from clients located on local IPv4 networks as well as
              from remote IPv4 or IPv6 clients over the Internet.
            </t>
          </li>

          <li><t>Adopting IPv6 Internet</t>
            <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │    Internet    │    Network B

   IPv6      ┏━━━━━━━┓    │      IPv6      │    ┏━━━━━━━┓
  ═══════════┫ IPREF ┣══════════════════════════┫ IPREF ┣
   IPv4      ┃ g-way ┃    │      IPv4      │    ┃ g-way ┃      IPv4
  ═══════════┫  GWA  ┣╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ┫  GWB  ┣═══════════
             ┗━━━━━━━┛    │                │    ┗━━━━━━━┛

                          │                │
            ]]></artwork>
            <t>After both ends connect to IPv6 Internet, IPREF addresses may be changed to switch
              traffic to go over the IPv6 Internet. Local networks are not affected by this change.
              Peers communicate the same way as if nothing happened. IPv4 Internet remains available
              but is not used. Most organizations would hold on to it until completely comfortable
              with the IPv6 Internet.
            </t>
            <t>This concludes adoption of the IPv6 Internet.
            </t>
          </li>

          <li><t>Dropping IPv4 Internet</t>
            <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │    Internet    │    Network B

   IPv6      ┏━━━━━━━┓    │      IPv6      │    ┏━━━━━━━┓
  ═══════════┫ IPREF ┣══════════════════════════┫ IPREF ┣
   IPv4      ┃ g-way ┃    │                │    ┃ g-way ┃      IPv4
  ═══════════┫  GWA  ┣                          ┫  GWB  ┣═══════════
             ┗━━━━━━━┛    │                │    ┗━━━━━━━┛

                          │                │
            ]]></artwork>
            <t>IPv4 Internet may be dropped if all peers connect to IPv6. For a certain period
              of time, organizations would keep their IPv4 Internet in case some peers are
              not connected to IPv6 Internet. This process only requires that organizations install
              IPREF gateways, their local networks remain unchanged.
            </t>
            <t>In the diagram, servers on Network B do not need any global IPv4 addresses, they
              are reachable from both IPv4 clients and IPv6 clients via IPREF without them. There
              may be thousands of IPv4 servers on network B and they will all be reachable. Indeed,
              thanks to NAT traversal capabilities, IPREF extends IPv4 address space to billions
              of new IPv4 servers, not just clients.
            </t>
          </li>

          <li><t>Transitioning of the Internet beyond IPv6</t>
            <artwork type="ascii-art"><![CDATA[
             Network A    │    Internet    │    Network B

   IPv6      ┏━━━━━━━┓    │      IPv6      │    ┏━━━━━━━┓
  ═══════════┫ IPREF ┣══════════════════════════┫ IPREF ┣
             ┃ g-way ┃    │      IPvX      │    ┃ g-way ┃      IPv4
             ┫  GWA  ┣    ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌   ┫  GWB  ┣═══════════
             ┗━━━━━━━┛    │                │    ┗━━━━━━━┛

                          │                │
            ]]></artwork>
            <t>IPREF greatly simplifies evolving the Internet past IPv6. In case a new
              protocol is developed, let's call it IPvX, it may be deployed with relatively
              little disruption by asking the Internet users to upgrade their edge routers
              and IPREF gateways. Such an upgrade would typically come down to a routine
              software download. With most sites already equipped with IPREF gateways,
              such a massive global upgrade could be performed in a relatively short time
              and without affecting existing network operations.
            </t>
          </li>
        </ol>
      </section>  <!-- ^^ Using IPREF for adoption of IPv6 Internet ^^ -->

    </section>  <!-- ^^ Multiprotocol Internet ^^ -->

    <section><name>Related Technologies</name>

      <t>IPREF works well with related technologies. It does not create conflicts and it does
        not attempt to step on their functionality.
      </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>IPv4 - IPREF does not replace IPv4, it is an optional add-on to enhance IPv4
             capabilities in the area of address rewriting. It relies on IPv4 in all other
             functions of a network protocol.
          </li>
          <li>IPv6 - IPREF does not replace IPv6, it is an optional add-on to enhance IPv6
             capabilities in the area of address rewriting. It relies on IPv6 in all other
             functions of a network protocol.
          </li>
          <li>NAT - IPREF is an address rewriting technology but operates differently than NAT.
            It operates exclusively at the network layer. It does not reach to upper layer
            protocols or lower layer protocols. For example, there is no manipulation of TCP/UDP
            ports. All layer 4 ports are carried transparently as-is. IPREF does not conflict
            with NAT. In a common configuration, a NAT gateway connects to the Internet without
            any changes. IPREF may operate in parallel to NAT on the same gateway, or it may
            operate on another gateway within the local network 'behind NAT'.
          </li>
          <li>VPN - IPREF deals mostly with addressing. It does not perform typical functions of
             a VPN and it does not replace it. It behaves differently. A typical VPN makes hosts
             of a local network appear as if members of some other local network. Hosts subjected
             to a VPN are managed by that other private networks. This involves a substantial level
             of trust between the two private networks. IPREF does not do any of that. Hosts
             reachable through IPREF are firmly in their respective private networks and remain
             managed by their respective administrators. There may be cases where IPREF may be
             deemed sufficient for a particular purpose but in general IPREF is not a substitute
             for a VPN. IPREF does not conflict with VPNs. A VPN might use IPREF to establish
             a VPN connection.
          </li>
          <li>Firewall - IPREF is not a firewall. While allocation or lack of allocation of
            references has the effect of blocking or allowing access, blocking policy is best
            vested with firewalls. IPREF mappers deal with address rewriting, they are not packet
            filters. There is no conflict between firewalls and IPREF. Firewalls might benefit
            from IPREF specific features to simplify management and configuration.
          </li>
        </ul>

    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA">
    <!-- All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section. See RFC 8126 for a guide.-->
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This memo includes no requests to IANA.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security">
      <!-- All drafts are required to have a security considerations section. See RFC 3552 for a guide. -->
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document should not affect the security of the Internet. Documents describing particular
        pieces of IPREF might. Proper security consideration statements would be included in those
        documents.
      </t>
    </section>

    <!-- NOTE: The Acknowledgements and Contributors sections are at the end of this template -->
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>

        <reference anchor="RFC791" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791">
        <!-- Manually added reference -->
          <front>
            <title>Internet Protocol</title>
            <author initials="J." surname="Postel" fullname="J. Postel">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="1981" month="September"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Internet Protocol Specification
              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="791"/>
        </reference>


        <xi:include href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.1035.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8200.xml"/>
        <!-- The recommended and simplest way to include a well known reference -->

      </references>

      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>

        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
        <!-- Manually added reference -->
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date year="1997" month="March"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>

      </references>
    </references>

 </back>
</rfc>
<!-- vim: tabstop=2 softtabstop=2 shiftwidth=2 expandtab
-->
