Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: behave requirements

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:16:24 +0200

The current draft states:

R7: Behave requirements
The translation mechanism MUST be compliant with the requirements for 
IPv4 NATs defined in [I-D.ietf-behave-tcp] and in [RFC4787] when 
applicable. These requirements should be interpreted with the IPv6 side 
on the IPv6-IPv4 translator being the IPv4 private side of the 
conventional NAT.

First, this heavily assumes v6 initiated communications. If we have 
nat46, we probably don’t need this

Question: should we include the behave requirements for ICMP, DCCP, SCTP?

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:42:37 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> R7: Behave requirements
> The translation mechanism MUST be compliant with the requirements for IPv4 
> NATs defined in [I-D.ietf-behave-tcp] and in [RFC4787] when applicable. These 
> requirements should be interpreted with the IPv6 side on the IPv6-IPv4 
> translator being the IPv4 private side of the conventional NAT.
>
> First, this heavily assumes v6 initiated communications. If we have nat46, we 
> probably don?t need this
>

I believe making unmodified "ping", "traceroute" and PMTUD work across 
the translator is a MUST have.  The loss of operational diagnostic 
capabilities is too big otherwise.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings