Re: [BEHAVE] Handling fragments in the stateful NAT64

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 01 December 2009 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DBD3A68B8 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:24:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wzLrirZ05EAd for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52A33A689B for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAMPfFEurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACKNrZgmBKEMQSBag
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,321,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="112208840"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2009 17:23:58 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB1HNvcS028466; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:23:57 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'marcelo bagnulo braun' <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>
References: <4B14E4D0.7070007@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:23:58 -0800
Message-ID: <097b01ca72ab$11232350$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To: <4B14E4D0.7070007@it.uc3m.es>
Thread-index: Acpyanw9YHpb2JO5TQWdEipdXgyqPgAQDUmA
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Handling fragments in the stateful NAT64
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:24:31 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 1:42 AM
> To: Behave WG
> Subject: [BEHAVE] Handling fragments in the stateful NAT64
> 
> Hi,
> 
> after the discussion in hiroshima, I have updated the draft.
> The current 03 version reads:
> 
>    If the incoming IP packet contains a fragment, then more processing
>    may be needed.  This specification leaves open the exact details of
>    how a NAT64 handles incoming IP packets containing fragments, and
>    simply requires that a NAT64 handle fragments arriving 
> out-of-order.

That sentence above says "requires that a NAT64 handle fragments arriving
out-of-order", yet ... (see "A", below)

>    A NAT64 MAY elect to queue the fragments as they arrive 
> and translate
>    all fragments at the same time.  Alternatively, a NAT64 
> MAY translate
>    the fragments as they arrive, by storing information that allows it
>    to compute the 5-tuple for fragments other than the first.  In the
>    latter case, the NAT64 will still need to handle the 
> situation where
>    subsequent fragments arrive before the first.
> 
>    Implementors of NAT64 should be aware that there are a number of
>    well-known attacks against IP fragmentation; see [RFC1858] and
>    [RFC3128].

RFC4963 might be useful to cite, as well.

>    Assuming it otherwise has sufficient resources, a NAT64 MUST allow
>    the fragments to arrive over a time interval of at least 
> 10 seconds.

"A":  The sentence below does *not* require the NAT64 to handle out-of-
order fragments.  The sentence below contains a RFC2119 keyword, so
I guess it is normative and overrides the non-RFC2119 sentence above,
but it would be better if the descriptive text above matched the 
RFC2119 keyworded sentence below.  Or remove one or the other.

>    A NAT64 MAY require that the UDP, TCP, or ICMP header be completely
>    contained within the first fragment.

-d


> 
> Let me know if you have issues witht eh current text. I hope 
> it reflects 
> the received feedback.
> 
> Regards, marcelo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave