Subject: [BEHAVE] Applicability statements for NAT66

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:42:18 -0600

One thing that bothers me in the NAT66 document is the commentary  
about recommended utility. I am of the opinion that there are at least  
two obvious use cases for IPv6/IPv6 NAT: business-to-business ULA-to- 
ULA exchanges with the intention of topology hiding (see http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-baker-v6ops-b2b-private-routing 
  for a discussion), and GSE. As such, while a subset of the IETF has  
a strong aversion to translation in general and IPv6/IPv6 translation  
in specific, a proper applicability statement would recognize the use  
cases.

Also, IETF applicability statements are generally separate from the  
statement of the algorithm they comment on. I list a few of these at  
the end of this note.

As such, I would strongly recommend that any applicability statement  
be a companion document to NAT66 as opposed to having a half-baked  
statement in the interior of the document.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1722.txt
1722 RIP Version 2 Protocol Applicability Statement. G. Malkin.
      November 1994. (Format: TXT=10236 bytes) (Also STD0057) (Status:
      STANDARD)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2005.txt
2005 Applicability Statement for IP Mobility Support. J. Solomon.
      October 1996. (Format: TXT=10509 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED  
STANDARD)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2039.txt
2039 Applicability of Standards Track MIBs to Management of World Wide
      Web Servers. C. Kalbfleisch. November 1996. (Format: TXT=31966  
bytes)
      (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2081.txt
2081 RIPng Protocol Applicability Statement. G. Malkin. January 1997.
      (Format: TXT=6821 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2208.txt
2208 Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Applicability
      Statement Some Guidelines on Deployment. A. Mankin, Ed., F.  
Baker, B.
      Braden, S. Bradner, M. O`Dell, A. Romanow, A. Weinrib, L. Zhang.
      September 1997. (Format: TXT=14289 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2333.txt
2333 NHRP Protocol Applicability Statement. D. Cansever. April 1998.
      (Format: TXT=20164 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2721.txt
2721 RTFM: Applicability Statement. N. Brownlee. October 1999.
      (Format: TXT=21200 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3037.txt
3037 LDP Applicability. B. Thomas, E. Gray. January 2001. (Format:
      TXT=13601 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3197.txt
3197 Applicability Statement for DNS MIB Extensions. R. Austein.
      November 2001. (Format: TXT=8610 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3210.txt
3210 Applicability Statement for Extensions to RSVP for LSP-Tunnels.
      D. Awduche, A. Hannan, X. Xiao. December 2001. (Format: TXT=17691
      bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3213.txt
3213 Applicability Statement for CR-LDP. J. Ash, M. Girish, E. Gray,
      B. Jamoussi, G. Wright. January 2002. (Format: TXT=14489 bytes)
      (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3257.txt
3257 Stream Control Transmission Protocol Applicability Statement. L.
      Coene. April 2002. (Format: TXT=24198 bytes) (Status:  
INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3294.txt
3294 General Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) Applicability. A.
      Doria, K. Sundell. June 2002. (Format: TXT=18294 bytes) (Status:
      INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3346.txt
3346 Applicability Statement for Traffic Engineering with MPLS. J.
      Boyle, V. Gill, A. Hannan, D. Cooper, D. Awduche, B. Christian,  
W.S.
      Lai. August 2002. (Format: TXT=33754 bytes) (Status:  
INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3410.txt
3410 Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-Standard
      Management Framework. J. Case, R. Mundy, D. Partain, B. Stewart.
      December 2002. (Format: TXT=61461 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2570)  
(Status:
      INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3612.txt
3612 Applicability Statement for Restart Mechanisms for the Label
      Distribution Protocol (LDP). A. Farrel. September 2003. (Format:
      TXT=35677 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3617.txt
3617 Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Scheme and Applicability
      Statement for the Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP). E. Lear.
      October 2003. (Format: TXT=11848 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4130.txt
4130 MIME-Based Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data Interchange Using
      HTTP, Applicability Statement 2 (AS2). D. Moberg, R. Drummond.  
July
      2005. (Format: TXT=99857 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4166.txt
4166 Telephony Signalling Transport over Stream Control Transmission
      Protocol (SCTP) Applicability Statement. L. Coene, J. Pastor- 
Balbas.
      February 2006. (Format: TXT=46659 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4365.txt
4365 Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
      (VPNs). E. Rosen. February 2006. (Format: TXT=77924 bytes)  
(Status:
      INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5045.txt
5045 Applicability of Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol (RDMA) and
      Direct Data Placement (DDP). C. Bestler, Ed., L. Coene. October  
2007.
      (Format: TXT=51749 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5197.txt
5197 On the Applicability of Various Multimedia Internet KEYing
      (MIKEY) Modes and Extensions. S. Fries, D. Ignjatic. June 2008.
      (Format: TXT=76848 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5253.txt
5253 Applicability Statement for Layer 1 Virtual Private Network
      (L1VPN) Basic Mode. T. Takeda, Ed.. July 2008. (Format: TXT=42675
      bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5387.txt
5387 Problem and Applicability Statement for Better-Than-Nothing
      Security (BTNS). J. Touch, D. Black, Y. Wang. November 2008.  
(Format:
      TXT=71707 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:34:24 +1300

On 2008-11-19 05:42, Fred Baker wrote:
> One thing that bothers me in the NAT66 document is the commentary about
> recommended utility. I am of the opinion that there are at least two
> obvious use cases for IPv6/IPv6 NAT: business-to-business ULA-to-ULA
> exchanges with the intention of topology hiding (see
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-baker-v6ops-b2b-private-routing for a
> discussion), and GSE. 

Not just GSE, surely - any method of multihoming support; the
simplest is RFC4116-like use of BGP4 with ULA or PI addresses
inside the site.

> As such, while a subset of the IETF has a strong
> aversion to translation in general and IPv6/IPv6 translation in
> specific, a proper applicability statement would recognize the use cases.
> 
> statement of the algorithm they comment on. I list a few of these at the
> end of this note.
> 
> As such, I would strongly recommend that any applicability statement be
> a companion document to NAT66 as opposed to having a half-baked

That isn't actually required by the description of applicability
statements in RFC2026, but I agree that it's clearer to clearly
separate them.

   Brian