IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [NSIS] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-23.txt

"Martin Stiemerling" <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu> Thu, 04 March 2010 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5063A63EB for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:33:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 zPmCa3zKIJJ1 for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:33:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1255D3A8504 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC182C0204F9; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:32:58 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id srH7Yu9XHs5F; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:32:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from VENUS.office (mx1.office [192.168.24.3]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2AF2C000350; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:32:48 +0100 (CET)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:32:25 +0100
Message-ID: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C01235400@VENUS.office>
In-Reply-To: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C012353D2@VENUS.office>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [NSIS] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-23.txt
Thread-Index: Acq275xbSl0vUIVJTBuB9UeHXWqLZAD/hVlAAB/B34A=
References: <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C01165FF9@VENUS.office><4B87D9EE.40704@ericsson.com> <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671C012353D2@VENUS.office>
From: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Cc: NSIS <nsis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [NSIS] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-23.txt
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:33:13 -0000

After sleeping a bit, I'm in favour of adding an address family field, but only specify IPv4 right now. 

Any objections from the WG?

stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nsis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Martin Stiemerling
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:42 PM
> To: Magnus Westerlund
> Cc: NSIS
> Subject: Re: [NSIS] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-23.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:26 PM
> > To: Martin Stiemerling
> > Cc: NSIS
> > Subject: Re: [NSIS] FW: I-D Action:draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-23.txt
> >
> >
> > I have now reviewed your update. It looks good and seems to resolve
> my
> > issues. However, I do wonder if the External binding address object
> 
> Great - thanks!
> 
> > should have an address family field. I don't want to be pessimistic
> but
> > I think there will exist some deployment of IPv6 NATs.
> 
> The object had an address family field in the past. However, this was
> kicked out as of WG consensus. All NAT stuff in the NATFW NSLP was IPv6
> NAT capable in the past, but we removed this, as this type of NAT was
> considered very, very evil.
> 
> >
> > I will start the IETF last call, and you can take the above as the
> > first
> > comment in IETF last call. I recommend the WG to review the changes
> as
> 
> Hope my answer above addresses your concern.
> 
> Changing back would require IMHO a) an IETF consensus that we allow
> IPv6 NAT in general and b) WG consensus to bring the IPv6 NAT
> functionality back to the NSLP.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>   Martin
> 
> stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu
> 
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
> London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> nsis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email