Protocol Action: 'Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-09.txt)

The IESG <> Wed, 26 September 2012 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AC421F861A; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.54
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DRo9FcOR7WBm; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3279921F8606; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-09.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:47:32 -0700
Cc: behave mailing list <>, behave chair <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:47:34 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)'
  (draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-09.txt) as Best Current Practice

This document is the product of the Behavior Engineering for Hindrance
Avoidance Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

This document defines common requirements for Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN)

Working Group Summary

Consensus is strong, except for a split between some WG members wanting
"SHOULD support bulk port allocation" (in order to reduce logging) and
other WG members who think no recommendation should be made. So,
the document merely describes the trade-offs in its Section 5. 

An IPR declaration exists against the document,  The actual claims are
not available.

At IETF82, consensus of the working group was to continue with
publication of the document. 

Document Quality

This is a requirements document, so there are not exactly
implementations of it.  Service providers are interested in it, and
vendors are interested in supporting these requirements for that


The document shepherd is Dan Wing (, and the
responsible AD is Wesley Eddy (

RFC Editor Note

Please change the REQ-7 requirement as indicated below:

   REQ-7:  It is RECOMMENDED that a CGN have an "Endpoint-Independent

   REQ-7:  It is RECOMMENDED that a CGN use an "Endpoint-Independent