Subject: [BEHAVE] ICMP type 3, code 13, one more time

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:06:35 -0700

I was having lunch today with Srisuresh and we came to an interesting  
inside on how to resolve this. The important thing is not if a NAT  
thinks it's a router, host, or power tool. The important thing is  
what does an applications that receives the ICMP error does. One  
observation is that it might be that you want error codes sent to the  
inside to be different than one sent to the outside. The other  
observation is that if 9,10,13 are all soft errors - do we want a  
soft or hard error here?

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:53:52 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 3:07 PM
> To: Behave WG
> Subject: [BEHAVE] ICMP type 3, code 13, one more time 
> 
> 
> observation is that it might be that you want error codes 
> sent to the inside to be different than one sent to the outside. 

When the NAT can't create a new mapping, the ICMP error would only be
sent to the inside.  Afterall, it's not possible to even create a 
new mapping from the outside.

> The other  

A NAT that runs out of resources (say, runs out of UDP mappings) 
seems a transient event on par with a routing error such as 
'network unreachable' (ICMP type=3, code=0), which is classified 
as a soft error.

(as individual.)

-d

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 17:27:18 -0700

> new mapping from the outside.

Good point - I don't know what happened to my brain :-)

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 00:10:05 -0700 (PDT)

Dan,

>From the e-mails below, it seems, the use of ICMP type 3, error code 13 for
REQ-8 has WG consensus. If my read is incorrect, please summarize the
consensus. I would appreciate that.

This is the last of the outstanding comments on the draft, AFAIK. Once I have
the closure on this, I will be happy to get the next rev of the draft. I
believe, the next rev of the draft should be ready for a WGLC. 

Thanks.

regards,
suresh