IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues

David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Mon, 07 February 2022 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <drc@virtualized.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 3A4E63A0E7A for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 09:18:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=virtualized-org.20210112.gappssmtp.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 wLSLhTSoQcFY for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 09:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1033.google.com (mail-pj1-x1033.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1033]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805993A0E76 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 09:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1033.google.com with SMTP id h14-20020a17090a130e00b001b88991a305so6207125pja.3 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Feb 2022 09:18:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=virtualized-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=DVDcVR3bBpCS6AltNR3l/8NsUBEide1bbU2wzzjRrPI=; b=Xu6OYzVl5BFONx33r8kQPI1EDH23lWNkZm5K9JboUh/e05IBmjK0PsYLHJkGI8uoRh owxUBesSpBHrpJ8/KlYbXAzNT47ijxgJ0i/8m21xO812pKPjherQ3onkXNjE1lRX+/3W qPSmVOB8r1xIeRzD/VGwkOD9GlE/jbqu+6krbXSE1WTFlgf2eT5zlm8qcknKrclq2Q8V 7TItE9TWR3LltQls3t8KNP6M82CkAJfp0/OGEjfhr6WnWJsiE2iSU99Dh+Z1dwjBDi2k XigmtUlr5TkzWrVyMHOeDwxzqkk3JX3vsmMtdp3Dft0Q8xz4GSFm+oC9J+cQhPS9wbVQ m/pQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=DVDcVR3bBpCS6AltNR3l/8NsUBEide1bbU2wzzjRrPI=; b=SWmVI1Voo/HWuvng69TqK2QKoR47zwNk5YO6o6XIukk0s6wUNrXGPJeXgijMbeZa5l M0sC4Lo7lQoOEEnZyLeLIENloeknf3HEBFweJgGKN9GAV/e1NXjDWH3bDoDzcRP3lrJD pJjoK2gmurMsLJuGQruC3Y2aeKRLFWczUXlMsVG0DaBq2bqo1UEDs70P11jZL6iZ/G08 AHoScGYX2xwZfcc/6tRNutGdzTVQLwOqXRxNCCATPFUYWS/frC/A7jLvh8J9WPvL04Wa GY7A4LRGONQbXBts61jnX4nMtI2vKlTzW3KFwxjhHxdhErEEWQyzeUOEcpqFJ9JJTyg2 eV7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532i/YN73bnnJiWLAlem/Uf6lBThGAgFBZ4UBTZEVegy1Zv9N4/2 7WIVtH4qPRHN0+GEmyx4MYzASFtdbLGjMw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy586j06nTHyG8T8Gl6vRo0W20UU5CCvEWJSqLnzn64sChCa9Rh4I7sQo3K0O7J/CZJ5IsVSQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d346:: with SMTP id l6mr673791plk.31.1644254314911; Mon, 07 Feb 2022 09:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2600:1700:5135:f1f:9919:d89:866a:f933]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k14sm12964485pff.25.2022.02.07.09.18.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Feb 2022 09:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DE0F525D-6A30-4CFF-8327-AFDD7050AC84"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.60.0.1.1\))
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <3ff58733-ccd5-fe15-8b06-dd69bfad0c74@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 09:18:32 -0800
Cc: behave@ietf.org
Message-Id: <59E4D416-0B86-46D3-BE0E-9C12881A07FD@virtualized.org>
References: <077D662F-5E6D-44F5-8DD3-B58D8B535C5D@network-heretics.com> <B6D6B4CC-AC1F-459C-952A-E9493E00FDB3@huitema.net> <7e53925e-46b0-29e4-6deb-47bcf389ff97@posteo.de> <3ff58733-ccd5-fe15-8b06-dd69bfad0c74@network-heretics.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.60.0.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/bUNGsRD2pAKhTI3k3cPdKj6KTN8>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] RFC6147 and RFC7208 interoperability issues
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, 07 Feb 2022 17:18:41 -0000

Keith,

On Feb 7, 2022, at 9:01 AM, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/22 11:38, Klaus Frank wrote:
>> I was hoping for clarification and an alignment between both working groups (and maybe an official recommendation i.e. Informational RFC) and to find a solution for the future. So that this problem doesn't stay unresolved.
> 
> There is no possible solution to the NAT problem, except to not use NATs.   The problems will never be resolved because Internet applications are not static.

You are aware of what the BEHAVE working group's charter was, right?

As far as I can tell, Klaus has identified a specific issue in which existing IETF specifications are deficient in order to facilitate interoperability in a specific protocol when NAT64 is in use.

Reiterating yet again how you think NAT is a bad idea does not appear to be constructive or helpful in any way.

The need to deal with NAT (in its myriad forms) is simply reality and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Regards,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email