Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5547)

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On second thought, the exact case is incorrect. I still think it's a silly restriction, but the private address in the case would not be placed into the Well-Known Prefix (and used as a destination address); it would be put into a /64 out of the subscriber's prefix (and used as a source address). So I can live without this change.

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 3:53 PM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6052,
> "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5547
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 3.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>   The Well-Known Prefix MUST NOT be used to represent non-global IPv4
>   addresses, such as those defined in [RFC1918] or listed in Section 3
>   of [RFC5735].  Address translators MUST NOT translate packets in
>   which an address is composed of the Well-Known Prefix and a non-
>   global IPv4 address; they MUST drop these packets.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The paragraph should be removed.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> IPv4 packets with private addresses are routinely translated to IPv4 packets with global addresses in NAT44. If a 464XLAT CLAT (stateless NAT64) cannot translate a private address to an IPv6 /96 prefix with that address as an IID (or whatever it's called), then the packet may not be translated to an IPv4 packet with a global address by the 464XLAT PLAT (stateful NAT64). This changes the intent of the sender, and in so doing violates the end to end principle. Practically speaking, it means that a network that uses 464XLAT or MAP-T with IPv4 in the subscriber and translating to IPv4 via NAT64 into the IPv4 Internet, it forces the network or the subscriber to purchase global address space. That's just silly. Let the user use private address space in the home or whatever.
> 
> 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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an interesting comment on projected traffic volume...