[BEHAVE] [Errata Rejected] RFC6052 (5984)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 17 February 2020 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15B2120274; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:26:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6BABdqhxwkRU; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:26:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE7812025D; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:26:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id BF3B6F406F5; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:26:25 -0800 (PST)
To: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com, congxiao@cernet.edu.cn, huitema@microsoft.com, marcelo@it.uc3m.es, mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com, xing@cernet.edu.cn
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, behave@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200217092625.BF3B6F406F5@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:26:25 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/8LDhkwjbuWbV8ipGgB1WgJbzsIA>
Subject: [BEHAVE] [Errata Rejected] RFC6052 (5984)
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:26:29 -0000

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6052,
"IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5984

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com>
Date Reported: 2020-02-16
Rejected by: Magnus Westerlund (IESG)

Section: 3.3

Original Text
-------------
Organizations deploying stateless IPv4/IPv6 translation SHOULD assign a Network-Specific Prefix to their IPv4/IPv6 translation service.

Corrected Text
--------------
Organizations deploying stateless IPv4/IPv6 translation SHOULD assign a Network-Specific Prefix for the exclusive use of their IPv4/IPv6 translation service.

Notes
-----
This seems obvious but is not. The NSP must only be used for the translation service. If the NSP is used only, for example in an enterprise network, in the LANs, and the translator allows it, it may create conflicts, as the resulting IPv6 address (NSP+IPv4 address) may be the same as a host inside the LAN has been configured with (either manually, or with SLAAC, DHCPv6), etc.

It has been confirmed that at least one vendor already realized this and the implementation doesn't work if the prefix is used both for the translator service and one of the LANs, but there is no explicit documentation on that. So if configured, the box doesn't work, but doesn't report is an an "invalid" config.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
This Errata requests requires WG consensus decision and thus outside of the Errata process. The specification does not prevent what is propsed as the appropriate way of assigning a NSP. The RFC does not restrict the usage, and as commented on the mailing list, there are ways to make even using the same prefix for both clients and the NAT64 device. 

--------------------------------------
RFC6052 (draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators
Publication Date    : October 2010
Author(s)           : C. Bao, C. Huitema, M. Bagnulo, M. Boucadair, X. Li
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance
Area                : Transport
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG