Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984)
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 18 February 2020 06:50 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 6E8671200D8 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:50:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
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 xb1qGQcbEj7Y for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7E9E1200B5 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:50:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by opfedar27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48MBM73M15z2y0q; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:50:43 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1582008643; bh=fEKp2sZsrentAIqiI+RUBS3blVPAKSwlFeX4N+O1Ac8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=JXI1y9jQGHUqt1uE9ygL5xuwPlSgl8/r+Rg9fln5dmF9zVfyhprwsGVrv37IUWxrF dJeKFpVSBwPuVJzpTxQSgSe4xiNyvtWondl6s6hRSpdxGl/fP5BVAT5hF4bqXJrkku hy65CCNx3iHZJpZCbEZUBVNzqC9Qm4FKKKaC3oiSoWmiMEzD7V1aq5VrGGivVeAdb4 kvX3x2xgSXh1UbMX5W3jhF03SAW4iogA1n0I9ewUvTxGtITRhqWlTIVOWy2oFu720A +En6AUxN8Yd5Uy7b7ppsbbmqERv+plwpwBVn9Ohtqi6PDRZgl9XXY8rBDhKi2vLJqG 6bCaG/g0sjvLA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.20]) by opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48MBM70yRQzBrM1; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:50:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 07:50:38 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "huitema@huitema.net" <huitema@huitema.net>, "ietf@kuehlewind.net" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: "jordi.palet@theipv6company.com" <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com>, "dthaler@microsoft.com" <dthaler@microsoft.com>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, "congxiao@cernet.edu.cn" <congxiao@cernet.edu.cn>, "xing@cernet.edu.cn" <xing@cernet.edu.cn>, "marcelo@it.uc3m.es" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, "dwing@cisco.com" <dwing@cisco.com>, "huitema@microsoft.com" <huitema@microsoft.com>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com>
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984)
Thread-Index: AQHV5Ho1i5WTlqabqkO/th8ePGNftKgeLvYAgADvV5CAACh7gIAAM7yAgAEK8LA=
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 06:50:38 +0000
Message-ID: <5c6a39f2-ca23-4e6f-837f-9d2e3e784291@OPEXCAUBMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20200216033519.9D51EF406CE@rfc-editor.org> <4bbe1633-3313-bdfb-8bb8-6d2ad571c724@huitema.net> <73fff6ba-dc6d-4360-ac4d-339265c9a09d@OPEXCAUBM8F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <7D8AF4CC-81F6-4238-B6FD-585ED9F4B275@kuehlewind.net> <403203c107e6472a140409db337c791ff5be13f6.camel@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <403203c107e6472a140409db337c791ff5be13f6.camel@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/99arn5qqryFGxUxfVg-DTYjc80k>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] 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: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 06:50:48 -0000
Hi Magnus, all, I do agree with rejecting the errata (rather that hold for document update). IMO, there is no confusion under the assumption of Section 3.3 ("internal IPv6 nodes are addressed using IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses"). May be you may consider updating the "verifier note" to point to that part. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com] > Envoyé : lundi 17 février 2020 16:51 > À : huitema@huitema.net; BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; > ietf@kuehlewind.net > Cc : jordi.palet@theipv6company.com; dthaler@microsoft.com; > behave@ietf.org; congxiao@cernet.edu.cn; xing@cernet.edu.cn; > marcelo@it.uc3m.es; dwing@cisco.com; huitema@microsoft.com; > mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com > Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984) > > Hi, > > I have already rejected it on the grounds that what is proposed is not > something > unclear or that gets wrongly interpreted of what is intended. The > proposed > behavior appears to me also to be within what is allowed by the > specification. > So it is really only a proposal for further guidance. Something that > may be > relevant, but only if a new version of the document is defined. Maybe > this > should be changed for Hold for document update. > > > Cheers > > Magnus > > On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 13:46 +0100, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I agree that this is probably not an errata. However, we could mark > this as > > “Hold for next Document Update”? I guess if there every will be an > update, > > this need further discussion, however, having it in the errata > system can help > > to remember it. Or do think people it should just be rejected for > now? > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > > > On 17. Feb 2020, at 10:43, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> < > > > mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > One further comment: the assumption we have for "stateless > translation" is > > > as follows > > > > > > In these deployments, internal IPv6 nodes are addressed > > > using IPv4-translatable IPv6 addresses, which enable them to be > > > accessed by IPv4 nodes. > > > > > > I don't see any issue with the current text under such assumption. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Med > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > De : Behave [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de > Christian > > > > Huitema > > > > Envoyé : dimanche 16 février 2020 21:05 > > > > À : RFC Errata System; congxiao@cernet.edu.cn; > huitema@microsoft.com; > > > > marcelo@it.uc3m.es; mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com; > > > > xing@cernet.edu.cn; ietf@kuehlewind.net; > > > > magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com; dwing@cisco.com; > dthaler@microsoft.com > > > > Cc : jordi.palet@theipv6company.com; behave@ietf.org > > > > Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984) > > > > > > > > Jordi, > > > > > > > > The errata process is not the right way to handle this issue. > You are > > > > asking for a change in the specification, and such changes > should go > > > > through the working group, as part of a standard discussion. > > > > > > > > To go to the specific technical point: it is indeed completely > doable > > > > to > > > > use the same /64 prefix for a local subnet and for a NAT > service. The > > > > only requirement is that the NAT be capable to distinguishing > between > > > > a > > > > translated address and a local address, and that requirement is > > > > implicit > > > > in RFC6502. For example, the NAT could reserve > <64bit>:dead:beef::/96 > > > > for the 6to4 service, and use DUD to defend against hosts > configuring > > > > an > > > > address in the same /64 prefix. That may not be a perfect > solution, > > > > but > > > > that's something the working group should discuss, not something > to be > > > > handled summarily through the errata process. > > > > > > > > -- Christian Huitema > > > > > > > > On 2/15/2020 7:35 PM, RFC Errata System wrote: > > > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6052, > > > > > "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators". > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > You may review the report below and at: > > > > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=244c0d64-7898013a-244c4dff- > 8691959ed9b7-c65f53b92dad5084&q=1&e=f4738ef5-d2a3-4f09-87e8- > 099582e1d0ef&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid5984 > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > Type: Technical > > > > > Reported by: Jordi Palet Martinez > <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com> > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Instructions: > > > > > ------------- > > > > > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, > please > > > > > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > > > > > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > > > > > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if > necessary. > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Behave mailing list > > > > > Behave@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Behave mailing list > > > > Behave@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Networks, Ericsson Research > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > Torshamnsgatan 23 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (598… RFC Errata System
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 … Christian Huitema
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 … mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 … Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 … JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 … mohamed.boucadair