Subject: [BEHAVE] interim meeting minutes

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 18:33:52 -0700

Minutes are at ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/dwing/behave/minutes.txt.  That same
directory has all the presentations as PDF files.  Please let me know if the
minutes need any adjustments.

Thanks to John Leslie and Philip Matthews for taking minutes!

At the top of the minutes are links to play back the WebEx recording,
including slides that were presented.

-d

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:14:14 +0200

About the terminology:

I suggest NAT64 for stateful and TRANS64 for stateless. (And NAT44,  
NAT46, NAT66 as well as TRANS46. Maybe even NAT464 if we need it to  
avoid NAT444 but please no NAT646.)

 From the minutes, I would remove this and simply point to the slides  
or the draft, because the text is slightly inaccurate and no point in  
trying to fix it with good text already out there:

Iljitsch: just finished yesterday, hope you had chance to look at it,  
two folks
didn't like "ALG", three options, ALG is third
Iljitsch: ALG slide, go transparent after AUTH, stateless, stateful
Iljitsch: Servers slide, must support EPSV, but firewall problem, must  
be able
to disable EPSV, control channel adrs in PASV
Iljitsch: Clients slide, must EPSV, windows command-line doesn't  
support EPSV,
retry PASV after EPSV failure, ignore ??, no args to EPSV

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:56:21 +0800

> avoid NAT444 but please no NAT646.)

The problem is that the stateless scheme (IVI) supports both TRANS46 and 
TRANS64, how to name it?

xing

> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
>

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:56:15 +0200

Xing Li escribió:
> The problem is that the stateless scheme (IVI) supports both TRANS46 
> and TRANS64, how to name it?
>

stateless translator?

Regards, marcelo

>> Iljitsch: Servers slide, must support EPSV, but firewall problem, 
>> must be able

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 02:03:00 +0000

> > and TRANS64, how to name it?

Proposal:
---------
Generic term, independent of direction: IPv6/IPv4 translator (or translation)

When you care about initiation from a specific direction,
but independent of stateful vs stateless: NAT64, NAT46

When you care about stateful vs stateless, add "stateful" or "stateless"
to one of the above terms.

So the stateless scheme that supports both directions would be
"stateless IPv6/IPv4 translation".
(The fact that this happens to have the same acronym as SIIT is
arguably a feature.)

-Dave

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 07:43:39 +0100

> but independent of stateful vs stateless: NAT64, NAT46

Maybe we need a standard set of terminology definitions to be cited
by relevant documents. As in

NAT64: Bidirectional packet translation between IPv4 and IPv6, initiated
by an IPv6 host, which may be stateful or stateless.

etc.
> to one of the above terms.

Yes. In general, I think it's better to avoid creating a large family
of acronyms with subtle differences in meaning.

  Brian

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 17:18:36 +0800

>> and TRANS64, how to name it?

sounds fine.

xing

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:24:07 +0200

> by an IPv6 host, which may be stateful or stateless.

+1 for this definition.

In IPv4, NAT (implicitly NAT44) means bidirectional packet  
translation between IPv4 and IPv4, initiated by an IPv4 host, which  
may be stateful or stateless.

RD

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 17:25:51 +0800

> Generic term, independent of direction: IPv6/IPv4 translator (or translation)
agree.
> (The fact that this happens to have the same acronym as SIIT is
agree.

however, there may be too many names and not organized in a systematic way.

stateless IPv4/IPv6 translation (46 and 64)
NAT64 (stateful and stateless)
NAT46 (stateful and stateless)

xing

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:43:45 +0200

> NAT46 (stateful and stateless)

In the stateless case NAT64 and NAT46 are the same.

I would prefer to keep "NAT" for stateful unless specifically  
indicated that it's stateless. We could keep SIIT for stateless  
translation.

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 16:59:05 +0200

> NAT46 (stateful and stateless)

Brian proposed (and I suported): "NAT64: Bidirectional packet  
translation between IPv4 and IPv6, initiated
by an IPv6 host, which may be stateful or stateless."

But, right, there is the problem of NAT64 and NAT46 being the same if  
stateless.

A slightly better definition can solve the problem:
"NATxy: Bidirectional packet translation between IPVx and IPVy, in  
which the global Internet side (external side) is IPVy, in which the  
other side (internal side) is IPVx, and which may be stateful or  
stateless."

SIITxy  (stateless) , and NAPTxy  (stateful) can then be defined  
similarly.

Would this, or something similar, be acceptable?

RD

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 17:14:49 +0200

I personally think that the common understanding of the word NAT todya 
is a device that is statefull and translates  not only addresses but 
also ports.
for that reason, i believe that using the expression NAT64 and NAT46 
highlight the main difference with current NATs, i.e. that they 
translate IPv6 to and from IPv4 and in the case of 64 they support 
communications iniciated from the IPv6 side and in the case of 46 they 
support communications initiated from the IPv4 side.

I think that the stateless translator is a very different device from 
the most common version of IPv4 nats, since they are stateless, so i 
think it makes sense to name it with a different name that highlights 
the fact that they are stateless. I think SIIT, stateless translator, 
even stateless IPv4/IPv6 translators make sense.

I also think that we need to have a short name for these things, in 
particular, i think we need an acronym, rather than a phrase.

So, i would go for:

Long name: stateless IPv4/IPv6 translation, short name SIIT
Long name: Stateful NAT64, short name NAT64
Long name: Stateful NAT46, short name NAT46

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:06:24 +0800

> indicated that it's stateless. We could keep SIIT for stateless 
SIITbis? since it is different from the original SIIT.

xing