draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-02.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-03.txt 
TSVWG R. Penno TSVWG R. Penno
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Best Current Practice S. Perreault Intended status: Best Current Practice S. Perreault
Expires: February 13, 2016 Jive Communications Expires: February 13, 2016 Jive Communications
S. Kamiset
Insieme Networks
M. Boucadair M. Boucadair
France Telecom France Telecom
S. Sivakumar
Cisco
K. Naito K. Naito
NTT NTT
August 12, 2015 August 12, 2015
Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements Updates Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements Updates
draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-02 draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-03
Abstract Abstract
This document clarifies and updates several requirements of RFC4787, This document clarifies and updates several requirements of RFC4787,
RFC5382 and RFC5508 based on operational and development experience. RFC5382 and RFC5508 based on operational and development experience.
The focus of this document is NAT44. The focus of this document is NAT44.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
6. EIF Mapping Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. EIF Mapping Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Outbound Mapping Refresh and Error Packets . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Outbound Mapping Refresh and Error Packets . . . . . . . 7
7. EIM Protocol Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. EIM Protocol Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Port Parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Port Parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Port Randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Port Randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. IP Identification (IP ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. IP Identification (IP ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. ICMP Query Mappings Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. ICMP Query Mappings Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. Hairpinning Support for ICMP Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12. Hairpinning Support for ICMP Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
15. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC4787], [RFC5382] and [RFC5508] greatly advanced NAT [RFC4787], [RFC5382] and [RFC5508] greatly advanced NAT
interoperability and conformance. But with widespread deployment and interoperability and conformance. But with widespread deployment and
evolution of Network Address Translation (NAT) more development and evolution of Network Address Translation (NAT) more development and
operational experience was acquired some areas of the original operational experience was acquired some areas of the original
documents need further clarification or updates. This document documents need further clarification or updates. This document
provides such clarifications and updates. provides such clarifications and updates.
skipping to change at page 9, line 42 skipping to change at page 9, line 42
NAT behavioral considerations are discussed in [RFC4787]. NAT behavioral considerations are discussed in [RFC4787].
Security considerations discussed in Section 5 of [RFC6146] apply Security considerations discussed in Section 5 of [RFC6146] apply
also fro NAT44. also fro NAT44.
In the case of EIF mappings due to high risk of resource crunch, a In the case of EIF mappings due to high risk of resource crunch, a
NAT MAY provide a configurable parameter to limit the number of NAT MAY provide a configurable parameter to limit the number of
inbound sessions spawned from a EIF mapping. inbound sessions spawned from a EIF mapping.
15. Acknowledgements 15. References
Thanks to Dan Wing, Suresh Kumar, Mayuresh Bakshi, Rajesh Mohan,
Senthil Sivamular, Lars Eggert, and Gorry Fairhurst for review and
discussions.
16. References 15.1. Normative References
16.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4787] Audet, F., Ed. and C. Jennings, "Network Address [RFC4787] Audet, F., Ed. and C. Jennings, "Network Address
Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787, January UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787, January
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787>. 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 45 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
[RFC6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field", [RFC6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013, RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864>.
[RFC6888] Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, [RFC6888] Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa,
A., and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade A., and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade
NATs (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, DOI 10.17487/RFC6888, NATs (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, DOI 10.17487/RFC6888,
April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6888>. April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6888>.
16.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pcp-port-set] [I-D.ietf-pcp-port-set]
Qiong, Q., Boucadair, M., Sivakumar, S., Zhou, C., Tsou, Qiong, Q., Boucadair, M., Sivakumar, S., Zhou, C., Tsou,
T., and S. Perreault, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) T., and S. Perreault, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)
Extension for Port Set Allocation", draft-ietf-pcp-port- Extension for Port Set Allocation", draft-ietf-pcp-port-
set-09 (work in progress), May 2015. set-09 (work in progress), May 2015.
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address [RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
RFC 2663, DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999, RFC 2663, DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999,
skipping to change at page 11, line 25 skipping to change at page 11, line 20
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and [RFC6269] Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and
P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269, P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6269, June 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6269, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6269>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6269>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and [RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dan Wing, Suresh Kumar, Mayuresh Bakshi, Rajesh Mohan, Lars
Eggert, and Gorry Fairhurst for their review and discussion.
Contributors
The following individual contributed text to the document:
Sarat Kamiset, Insieme Networks, United States
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Reinaldo Penno Reinaldo Penno
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive 170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134 San Jose, California 95134
USA USA
Email: repenno@cisco.com Email: repenno@cisco.com
Simon Perreault Simon Perreault
Jive Communications Jive Communications
Canada Canada
Email: sperreault@jive.com Email: sperreault@jive.com
Sarat Kamiset
Insieme Networks
California
Mohamed Boucadair Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom France Telecom
Rennes 35000 Rennes 35000
France France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Senthil Sivakumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States
Email: ssenthil@cisco.com
Kengo Naito Kengo Naito
NTT NTT
Tokyo Tokyo
Japan Japan
Email: kengo@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: k.naito@nttv6.jp
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
19 lines changed or deleted 28 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/