[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt
Some comments on this draft, from the perspective of someone familiar
with the various BEHAVE documents.
* R6 lists TCP, UDP, ICMP, and TLS as protocols to be supported. I am
surprised that TLS is listed in addition to TCP, since full TCP
support would imply TLS. I am also surprised that DTLS is not listed,
if listing TLS is seen as necessary. Any explanation for this?
* R7 lists the BEHAVE requirement documents for TCP and UDP. Is there
some reason for not listing the BEHAVE requirement document for ICMP?
* R8 talks about fragmented packets. Is there some reason to include
this specifically, given that the BEHAVE requirements cover
fragmentation in some detail? The BEHAVE requirements do not mention
the 5 second stuff, but they talk about out-of-order fragments which
R8 does not mention.
* I6 and I7 talk about SCTP and DCCP support. Is it acceptable to
support these by transporting them over UDP?
* I8 talks about multicast. Should multicast support comply with the
BEHAVE requirement document for multicast?
* A (long) comment on R2.
There is a class of applications that work today through NAT44s. As a
general rule, these are applications that do not carry addresses
embedded inside protocol messages, and have communication initiated by
the host behind the NAT. Is this the same class of applications that
should be supported by the proposed translation mechanism?
Code in a NAT that recognizes packets of a specific application
protocol and does special processing of that packet is known as an ALG
(Application Level Gateway). The BEHAVE group considers an FTP ALG to
be acceptable, because FTP was there before NATs, but other ALGs are
discouraged (= default off). Is this rule consistent with the proposed
transition mechanism? This rule is given in RFC 4787, which R7 says
the mechanism must comply with.
If so, is R2 an attempt to formalize all this in different words?
On Tue, 13-May-08, at 19:30 , Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of
Title : IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition:
Requirements for solutions
Author(s) : M. Bagnulo, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt
Pages : 17
Date : 2008-05-13
This note presents the problem statement, analysis and requirements
for solutions to IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and eventual transition in a
scenario in which dual stack operation is not the norm.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the