Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984)

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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5984
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> 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
> 