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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 17 February 2020 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 84FFE1207FD for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:43:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.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 itKGjfciqANU for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76BC8120639 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 01:43:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by opfedar20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48LfDh6y5mz8t3h; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:43:16 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1581932597; bh=9w2oTWZi+WOuiuelIMivPr68cOWDi6oMKvzmvWOmQs0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=xct7M4TJuxbhe97Rme2K1OO7cdJYrjYew/yPfcweLR7+erX/SSRBwLQpAHkk1AxJO SPJUKQqKIXPH38qhnic2kZwl1gsnmSzL+LxVXIH23aKxIsAmsBiJXCXh3RAVgMWK+E i51j3MROUCQHT8oVytPjPN9oVZ34iZvALQvj/bkvHuaWwvb5rnzFxQRh+8HyfPBF6R 4FuNfBs/dz6HLuXNWX8PVXngT9pwSjDkcPZtAwSnntRzC5hQjZvZHAOdTqj92mJdCI XH4ur6SedgWfeZ7I/nTQ9TTC5Pm8GCzHOiZaGSlFPuC4rMsqUDuVS3379a9cAqyYDt 7EtgyZXUiiSeQ==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.107]) by opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48LfDh4L1KzBrMT; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:43:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM8F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::74f6:8fc8:b1b8:dbba%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:43:15 +0100
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "congxiao@cernet.edu.cn" <congxiao@cernet.edu.cn>, "huitema@microsoft.com" <huitema@microsoft.com>, "marcelo@it.uc3m.es" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, "mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com>, "xing@cernet.edu.cn" <xing@cernet.edu.cn>, "ietf@kuehlewind.net" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "dwing@cisco.com" <dwing@cisco.com>, "dthaler@microsoft.com" <dthaler@microsoft.com>
CC: "jordi.palet@theipv6company.com" <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984)
Thread-Index: AQHV5Ho1i5WTlqabqkO/th8ePGNftKgeLvYAgADvV5A=
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:43:14 +0000
Message-ID: <73fff6ba-dc6d-4360-ac4d-339265c9a09d@OPEXCAUBM8F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20200216033519.9D51EF406CE@rfc-editor.org> <4bbe1633-3313-bdfb-8bb8-6d2ad571c724@huitema.net>
In-Reply-To: <4bbe1633-3313-bdfb-8bb8-6d2ad571c724@huitema.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/behave/xmEmU06lBlu2ERFOBm1dlOC5npY>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6052 (5984)
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, 17 Feb 2020 09:43:24 -0000

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