Re: [v4v6interim] [BEHAVE] [46translation] Proposal for new BEHAVE charter

" Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> Fri, 24 October 2008 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v4v6interim-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v4v6interim-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33AA3A6A75; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C693A69B2; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.184
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3=1.63]
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 OQNMvo+078fr; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41613A6949; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m9OA9uLF029715; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:10:05 +0300
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:09:56 +0300
Received: from esdhcp04094.research.nokia.com ([172.21.40.94]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:09:52 +0300
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com>
Organization: Maemo Software - Nokia Devices R&D
To: behave@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:09:55 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <48F8539D.90608@ericsson.com> <49009C8B.80707@cisco.com> <alpine.LRH.2.00.0810241218190.1106@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0810241218190.1106@netcore.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200810241309.55912.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2008 10:09:52.0669 (UTC) FILETIME=[A814ACD0:01C935C0]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: v4v6interim@ietf.org, 46Translation <46translation@employees.org>, ext Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] [BEHAVE] [46translation] Proposal for new BEHAVE charter
X-BeenThere: v4v6interim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of coexistence topics for the 01-Oct-2008 v4-v6 coexistence interim meeting <v4v6interim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/v4v6interim>
List-Post: <mailto:v4v6interim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org

On Friday 24 October 2008 12:20:51 ext Pekka Savola, you wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Mark Townsley wrote:
> >>  If #2 does not remind you of how we got into so much trouble nat44,
> >> well it should. Because of the impact on NAT66 on applications, if IETF
> >> does decide to do NAT66 specifications, I think it is very important
> >> that the specification is developed not only in the context of v6ops
> >> people but is also developed with input of folks from applications that
> >> need to use it. Today that would roughly mean behave.
> >
> > I think that something that operates only at the IP layer could stay in
> > the int-area.
>
> But it doesn't; a 1:1 NAT66 would break every app (FTP, SIP, etc.)
> that's broken today with NAT4 (with or without port translation)
> unless the NAT has ALGs.  To implement such ALGs, NAT66 would need to
> operate beyond the IP layer.

Not exactly. I know at least FTP/ESPV and RTSP would work as is through NAT66. 
I suspect many proprietary gaming protocol would end up there too. I'd like 
to know about CIFS and NFS.

FTP/EPRT is broken, also it could have been designed such that it would not 
have been (by making the remote address optional) :-( Also, for instance, SIP 
would be much easier to "fix" than with NAT44 + ICE, assuming you don't care 
about IPv4 at all.


I assume Margaret plans to scope her I-D clearly such that the limitations are 
clearly stated and the reader is pointed to potential NAT-free alternative 
solutions (and especially to reading the IPv6 security RFC). I think we all 
know that NATs suck. The points are: 1/ NAPT sucks harder than pure NAT, and 
2/ lets we IETFers not do the same mistake of ignoring NATs.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Maemo Software, Nokia Devices R&D
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim