Subject: [BEHAVE] Regarding 6to4-PMT

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:59:34 +0200

Chairs,

There is a 6to4-PMT Draft under discussion in the v6ops working group
[draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel].  Originally, this
draft was not intending to introduce any changes to NAT (in theory) but does
differ with the current draft-mrw-nat66 I-D which covers NAT66.

The main difference include:
* The use of PMT is not included in the "NPTv6 Applicability Statement" in
section 1.2
* It does not align with the "multi-homing" and "redundancy/load-sharing"
sections since the 6to4 continues to use RFC3068 (WKP) to get to the
6to4/PMT relay
* The PMT implementation does not include provisions for "Checksum Nutural
Mappings" but uses RF3022 "checksum adjustment" as used in many NATs today.
* PMT is targeted as "stateless" but does not prevent "statefull
implementations"
* PMT does not promote any given algorithm for the Prefix Translation
(Flexible), but the most basic mapping is provided in that draft (Maps a
2002::/16 to a Provider:/32 and drops the Sub-ID bits  keeping the Host
generated (65-128) bits

Due to this, do we need to discuss this draft and/or concept within the
Behave WG?

As a side note, 6to4-PMT is already in code and working/being tested in a
couple labs/network.

By the way, the concept as a whole will be debated once again in v6ops along
with two other drafts associated with 6to4 (so I do not know the future
status of the draft just yet)

Regards,

Victor K