IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] moving towards recommendation: the current plan

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 16 November 2009 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1FC3A6995 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:52:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 dA0OxMvzw84A for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com (mail-yx0-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF7E3A6933 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxe11 with SMTP id 11so4970468yxe.15 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:52:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7vUUgnVSv/cFFhcO86qJ18aiZKBszQnVOs3PIYd1tWs=; b=mrh8hfzhdHiuUGedeKMM9902Fs2vgxvm1VxgyaOG09LL6XtFroZr5liRKjA1xSkXDE nYyvv0fgP0SVXdN9AbPGX/tR1YIQI6dJwA4s0BlFVouqVKo/EHuD6INyHZGtgi3WwcAJ JyBITRL3aIMgQvc5wQRgvZqvoNtiKL0lot20k=
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=hSXCjx5zSLgwSpt5ysUx2mH57jpoJkpeQs+lsPAdlypBa9XkAgYARmoXnysNOmv8iG D1XkVl3JijB5yuMUH2wFp0HcwvEm5vCJyQ9wKThLYGw1cfCvV75wnq4n8bjYn0mkhXl3 otn3+DLO3Y7QQ/OlSFVJL59VlO9jaCSwoa6IU=
Received: by 10.151.18.19 with SMTP id v19mr14835325ybi.66.1258415545718; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:52:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ([121.98.142.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm1461269ywc.54.2009.11.16.15.52.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B01E5B4.2050109@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:52:20 +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: menth@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de
References: <D4C14156-AA5C-453F-9DDE-94F7E79B2D17@CS.UCLA.EDU> <4B0106CD.7030608@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <4B01D11D.1040806@gmail.com> <4B01D96A.2010408@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <4B01D96A.2010408@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] moving towards recommendation: the current plan
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:52:30 -0000

On 2009-11-17 11:59, Michael Menth wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Brian E Carpenter schrieb:
>> On 2009-11-16 21:01, Michael Menth wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> if NAT66 is an option
>>>     
>>
>> Can you define "NAT66" precisely?
>>   
> We need the a box that translates local IPv6 addresses into global IPv6
> addresses using a stateless NAT using a one-to-one reversible mapping
> algorithm for single-homed edge networks. That is precisely what NAT66
> as described in the draft does according to our understanding.

Clarification: when I say 'reversible', I mean that the translation
is reversible before the packet is delivered to the transport layer at
the remote end (as in 8+8/ILNP or SHIM6).

Obviously, any NAT has to perform its local mapping in both directions,
but tha's not what I meant.

   Brian

> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Michael
> 
>> The only precise proposal I am aware of is
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrw-behave-nat66
>> (which I should stress is *not* an IETF WG document,
>> despite its name). That is a stateless, non-reversible
>> NAT.
>>
>>    Brian
>>   
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email