IETF Logo Mail Archive

NATLL6 [was Re: Forwarding Packets With Link Local Destination Addresses]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 08 January 2021 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F8F3A0D07 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:37:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=gmail.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 BcmUJG7gBW9U for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (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 6AE063A0BB3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 11:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id q20so3606101pfu.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:37:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I+E/f7Sa+p9VuzoZlfQvZbCi9iKRYQV9xpEWXzQ5XkU=; b=bYADvI21jo9TTS4A5OHcT6kcisKc4AXa5aEyHuozAi8hNrerRcs1boc5rRMbjh61Cr mpD5Aebi9yl295ToEl5lOxX/ceU0I8egrs8yIFH6Nuh7K2ue35G/H3XOSFFJzqmtZJva WUx0OYMMXZAF9W3ZUOBEZTqMUXBi6HLjBs/pCOvUkttGsc4/I21ywQUK68K0u8jiVoyQ QLFVGElsGVOIhhy5DKy6UUASAHOWEWP+8eJkmoOiHKyg0jQPxftAHjka8WZKnddwQyy/ o6s9tNtQDrKvPtjXx4XT8A71d8I0rOA9dIhYwTRhaxtij8FkBO0je/fEF6aC2Kvme38R EG9Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I+E/f7Sa+p9VuzoZlfQvZbCi9iKRYQV9xpEWXzQ5XkU=; b=Iv6vAvFx4fljRxNFcj0nX1VID35nZSCwmWabNKFRE6SBeYJ0LcLTcVwk0d3uebvTKN zPhJQDt5P78jF9Fe+Bli9fPz6xjGS1ubEU/4O4PFq6EhUK8oGv2iXfHMn0Cd5cLjpuEw TcxUK3zxo45L5/p7pRpIBiWrJVA1odc6pvqbAq9OwPYfkz3X4jGhG9yTmKoIibN8Zwem Q84RIBk4Z6R1avDzx5eIhfNjqxqeXMMgxVfkxbhj8YRhbjBJt/2o9xbUizc+DqaNVk7J vYwpO5L7DmQSas3Oy1u1UKiQtc7zAMV4A0R5rTjWEZ4R5fj6/yPDX6AdtmbO1CXYvgd/ MeYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533rF+w/srsi5aCR4C3fFxpoDNuCDvrHZ777oU2kEfxZqqLnw3QX hUT0zj6w2Ft6YlIOUf8IexPYfeUfVZg+TA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwlHkiwif5UOwH4ehnSlMnCMz1j6M6Hf8poNvWeMYaztNovNSvv9gs/MFmQeQ2x+CanohuCrw==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:1b16:0:b029:19e:238:8627 with SMTP id b22-20020a621b160000b029019e02388627mr5320672pfb.52.1610134637142; Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d10sm9663438pfn.218.2021.01.08.11.37.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Jan 2021 11:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: NATLL6 [was Re: Forwarding Packets With Link Local Destination Addresses]
To: Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <DM6PR05MB6348A18046C5DDC7CF2AED76AEAF0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <561e3133-73c9-6ded-0311-838d5939dcd2@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <605db208-e458-58ec-5872-932e0b9f9b38@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 08:37:13 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <561e3133-73c9-6ded-0311-838d5939dcd2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Wp4JrUMpazep8WsWZine7HsznJs>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 19:37:20 -0000

On 08-Jan-21 14:34, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>   My apologies for using this thread, I have a valid point. My comment inline:

Subject header tweaked accordingly...

> On 7/1/21 1:53 PM, Ron Bonica wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>>  
>>
>> According to RFC 4291, “routers must not forward any packets with Link-Local source or destination addresses to other links”.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I interpret this statement to include packets that contain routing headers. For example, it forbids an SRv6 packet whose final segment has a locator that begins with FE80.
>>
>   In LACNIC we ran a project called Natmeter [1] for about 2 years, we obtained a lot of interesting data during this period [2].
> 
>   The case is the following, we detected some end-user devices with only Link Local addresses (exactly, no GUA nor ULA) that were successfully natted and using the web.
> 
>   Is it ok?, do you consider it as a forwarding of a packet? was it a crazy result? (we saw few samples of this)

NAT66 is not defined and not recommended, so there really isn't an answer to your questions. I can't think of a reason why such a hack wouldn't work, though. As long as the LL address is translated, it will not escape from the LAN.

Regards
     Brian

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> [1] https://prensa.lacnic.net/news/en/research/lacnic-project-detects-massive-presence-of-nat-boxes-in-the-region
> 
> [2] Well, actually it still available with much less successful measurement
> 
> 
>>  
>>
>> Does everyone share this interpretation? If so, do RFC 4291 or RFC 8200 make this sufficiently clear?
>>
>>  
>>
>>                                                                                                    Ron
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email