IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nat66] NPTv6 deals with "packets", not with "datagrams" - to be corrected after draft-14

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 02 May 2011 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: nat66@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nat66@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A37CE06F3 for <nat66@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2011 09:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XB6v3lLcMZnd for <nat66@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2011 09:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5AEE06B1 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2011 09:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=1240; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304355307; x=1305564907; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mxzb5sQvvPby7lamR91iDYu6fbAS+mLG73j22HofCT8=; b=At3k8IWo/HLKViMr4EyNLqdpvgi8ulSn1Dn+Io9+qK2QQuYsT7yE/zib v6ksP81Fr6ja+Id2XwDT7t77uZT3lUoAroOs9QJChro2kBGhxy0X2xf6i K8bvdqXW9zUEfXTtLyRHL0+s9IV/RVEIfsWWz0XvskKe9+2D3IZXxdbAO Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAM7gvk2rRDoI/2dsb2JhbACmHneIcZwdnAyGAASGDohrhBmKKQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,303,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="306636538"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 May 2011 16:55:02 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local (stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com [10.32.244.222]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p42Gsumr017468; Mon, 2 May 2011 16:55:02 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Mon, 02 May 2011 09:55:02 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Mon, 02 May 2011 09:55:02 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <067FF1C8-985D-49B7-AF8D-86A0F337CB9D@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 09:54:40 -0700
Message-Id: <B6BD718F-6940-4ECE-833C-670052DB3998@cisco.com>
References: <20110314063002.28048.29694.idtracker@localhost> <19F3A4CD-F39C-4F17-A6E9-7AA8AFBC6B3B@cisco.com> <CF8367A6-F303-43D7-99C6-D40D1DD5D5D9@free.fr> <87C8BBB5-2B11-412E-B788-1538CBE03FB4@cisco.com> <067FF1C8-985D-49B7-AF8D-86A0F337CB9D@free.fr>
To: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>, NAT66 HappyFunBall <nat66@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [nat66] NPTv6 deals with "packets", not with "datagrams" - to be corrected after draft-14
X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." <nat66.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 02 May 2011 16:55:08 -0000

On May 2, 2011, at 5:22 AM, Rémi Després wrote:

> Fred.
> 
> On March 11, 2011 Rémi Després wrote (about the draft -12 in which "datagram" is used interchangeably with "packet"):
>> ...
>> 3.2 and remainder of the document.
>> The word datagram seems to be used instead of packet:
>> - RFC 2460 doesn't use the word datagram for IPv6, even in case of fragmentation 
>> - In any case, NPTv6 operates individually on packets without concern with reassembling fragments.
> 
> As draft -14 has replaced all occurrences of "packet" by "datagram", there must have been a misunderstanding.
> 
> Since NPTv6 isn't concerned about reassembling transport-layer datagrams (a significant advantage over NAPT66 whose advantages are on a different ground), the word to be used throughout in the draft  is "packet". 
> In my understanding, this needs to be fixed in a next version. 

I'm not planning on a next version.

I also am confused by your use of the term "datagram". A datagram is not a transport layer construct, it's a network layer construct. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/datagram

We are absolutely discussing datagrams here. Every IP packet is a datagram.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email