IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nat66] Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 02 March 2011 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9CF3A68DA for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:19:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Y1Um7umJXYq for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:18:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9453A68D8 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:18:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so528189fxm.31 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:20:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zOhkBFGLF8GKhMbcN4BMs+K9IJ0Rd1oHMAGzZGtzeWw=; b=cn6ThfmldeefZlqkI3xPQPR51o4XSV/nG/A7ZTXXQfZJfPw4CxSOZ/ni1W7Y0D7hsf gfnuxaLM4hQ1SPbcA7OHPTpaXzMVMHHWfIr/wfVUZq4l35t3VVTBz5W0nMr4ih2n0Mhd xkow7XyPQ8ZnVgyhQBtDjZIYWYHa6YH9CWcfQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=sva/Z6AFe2vh9c4QGC6/m82CJMQsYpQmzqHHCGZ3GolOBd6sUUJ46OmKMPqkHA0muA ZoZKpw91eyGM0kf5ej3eO93ndNkYGM4OhKYNfMgDdOpud7X3VubuUDanjTD6y/AJkeLD jV+3+H5RvZLzSophj3lTeujv6wSGr7evb+/Fc=
Received: by 10.223.112.79 with SMTP id v15mr498390fap.143.1299104405371; Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:20:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n1sm272407fam.40.2011.03.02.14.20.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:20:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D6EC293.90608@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:20:03 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "S.P.Zeidler" <spz@serpens.de>
References: <20110228223003.13022.10464.idtracker@localhost> <845A4F08-46E7-48EE-B294-0C8368BAD1CB@cisco.com> <20110302072822.GA20321@serpens.de> <5AC61190-49B0-49B5-ACB1-1FA5082C0380@cisco.com> <20110302203006.GI23030@serpens.de> <4D6EB08E.9000109@gmail.com> <20110302214913.GG20321@serpens.de>
In-Reply-To: <20110302214913.GG20321@serpens.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nat66@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nat66] Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-mrw-nat66-08.txt
X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." <nat66.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66>, <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nat66>
List-Post: <mailto:nat66@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66>, <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:19:00 -0000

On 2011-03-03 10:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter (brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com):
> 
>> On 2011-03-03 09:30, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
>> ...
>>> Which applications will have trouble with address stability and
>>> provider independence, thus requiring you to make the benefits of NPTv6
>>> line up with the applications you want to use??
>> The usual ones - those that for whatever reason have explicit
>> dependency on the IP address of the peer.
> 
> i.e. they will have trouble with PI addresses also?

No, why?

The FTP PORT command is the oldest instance of the problem, and SIP
has a serious version of the problem. NPTv6 will need application layer
support for cases like these, but since the same support is needed
today for NAT44 and will be needed for NAT64, this doesn't seem to
be a new problem. Section 5 of the draft covers it.

IPsec also has a problem with NPTv6, but I suppose RFC 3948 applies.

    Brian

> because they have a problem with the addresses being stable and provider
> independent?
> 
>> We've known for 15 years
>> that this is bad design, but it hasn't stopped us doing it.
> 
> regards,
> 	spz

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email