IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] NAT64: clarification on RST handling in V6 FIN RCV state

Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com> Thu, 08 March 2012 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.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 28CF411E809A for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:06:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HRzakl8Iu-QQ for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:06:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.207]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A095C11E808C for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 16:06:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail65-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.248) by AM1EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.3.204.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:06:49 +0000
Received: from mail65-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail65-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AC42C038B for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:06:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -26
X-BigFish: VS-26(zz9371Ic85fh179cMzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
Received-SPF: pass (mail65-am1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail65-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail65-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1331165207298225_28836; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:06:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.225]) by mail65-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4507924005D for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:06:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by AM1EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (10.3.207.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:06:45 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC238.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.155]) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.178]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.004; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:06:43 +0000
From: Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>
To: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: NAT64: clarification on RST handling in V6 FIN RCV state
Thread-Index: Aczyijvg7tx51T/RTcC0uSBh3Nq7LQKNPLOA
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:06:43 +0000
Message-ID: <03FE6A726D13284495EF1787D25F1DF91F84F766@TK5EX14MBXC238.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_03FE6A726D13284495EF1787D25F1DF91F84F766TK5EX14MBXC238r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Cc: Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] NAT64: clarification on RST handling in V6 FIN RCV state
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:06:52 -0000

I've not seen any responses, comments would be appreciated.

From: Dmitry Anipko
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:21 PM
To: behave@ietf.org
Subject: NAT64: clarification on RST handling in V6 FIN RCV state

Hello,

RFC 6146, section 3.5.2.2, says that in V6 FIN RCV state *any* packet other than V4 FIN must set the session lifetime to no less than TCP_EST=2hours.

If the V4 target sent RST in response to the translated V6 FIN, what is the reason to keep the NAT mapping alive for TCP_EST instead of TCP_TRANS?

Should the language "if a V4 FIN packet is received,... lifetime is set to TCP_TRANS" be changed to "if a V4 FIN or V4 RST packet is received,... lifetime is set to TCP_TRANS"?

-Dmitry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email