IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Fri, 09 March 2012 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.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 BCFCA21F85D6 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:10:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 RXoqUN1cxS+c for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:10:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omr10.networksolutionsemail.com (omr10.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.60]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF3821F85D4 for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 22:10:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm-omr4 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr10.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q296A1Qc024345 for <behave@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 01:10:01 -0500
Authentication-Results: cm-omr4 smtp.user=wes@mti-systems.com; auth=pass (PLAIN)
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from [69.81.143.202] ([69.81.143.202:24097] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by cm-omr4 (envelope-from <wes@mti-systems.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id C7/94-14799-9BE995F4; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 01:10:01 -0500
Message-ID: <4F599E5C.5090500@mti-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 01:08:28 -0500
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
References: <EF5EF2B13ED09B4F871D9A0DBCA463C21C2CC1F6@TK5EX14MBXC298.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4F585585.9000706@it.uc3m.es> <A89221DA-7F68-4EB2-AA7E-17DA3732937C@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A89221DA-7F68-4EB2-AA7E-17DA3732937C@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Murari Sridharan <muraris@microsoft.com>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@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: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 06:10:02 -0000

On 3/8/2012 5:47 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> I didn't find a FIN (F without Ack) in any of the examples.

Since FIN is set on packets coming from a synchronized state,
I'm not sure why you would expect to find a bare one without
ACK set as well?  It should fail validity tests on reception
and be ignored if ACK isn't set.  Any stack generating those
would be broken, I believe.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email