Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6 Packets
draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-07
Yes
(Ron Bonica)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Russ Housley)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-08 for -06)
Unknown
No objection to the publication of this document, but a few points anyway 1. OLD: [RFC6145] section 5.2 of the "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm" document. states that "the IPv6 addresses in the ICMPv6 header may not be IPv4-translatable addresses and there will be no corresponding IPv4 addresses representing this IPv6 address. NEW: [RFC6145] section 5.3 of the "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm" document. states that "the IPv6 addresses in the ICMPv6 header may not be IPv4-translatable addresses and there will be no corresponding IPv4 addresses representing this IPv6 address. 2. "The recommended approach to source selection is to use the a single" 3. From the write-up: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is proposed as a Best Current Practice. The argument for that status is as follows. The original authors, from CERNET, observed an operational problem in their network, which uses a stateful IPv4/IPv6 Translator between an IPv4-only domain (CERNET) and an IPv6-only domain (CERNET2). I guess it's a typo: statefull -> stateless 4. <RANT> That's a typical IETF document that contains all the information required, but ONLY contains the minimum piece of information. Sure if you have all the background (RFC 6145, RFC 6052, ICMP, stateless/statefull, IPv6 & IPv4), this draft is a piece of cake. However, I wonder: are we doing a good service to new comers by reducing the content to the minimum? No, we're simply adding to the argument that RFCs are a pain to read. An extra diagram with an example, in the introduction, with the following pieces of information, would have been so much easier: - IPv6 domain, - IPv4 domain, - request goes in one direction (indicate the IP address, before and after the translation), - ICMPv6 comes in the other direction (indicate the IP address before the translation), - src IP address as ??? - etc... And also explaining why it's not an issue with statefull (or simply a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145#section-1.3) would be useful information </RANT> Regards, Benoit
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-11 for -06)
Unknown
I have cleared my DISCUSS based on Ron's promise to add clarifying text on what constitutes a translatable address.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-10 for -06)
Unknown
A nit: Section 5., paragraph 1: > If a pool of public IPv4 addresses is configured on the translator, > it is RECOMMENDED to randomly select the IPv4 source address from the > pool. Random selection reduces the probability that two ICMP > messages elicited by the same TRACEROUTE might specify the same > source address and, therefore, erroneously present the appearance of > a routing loop. An enhanced traceroute application is RECOMMENDED in > order to obtain the IPv6 source addresses which generated the ICMPv6 > messages. What is the RECOMMENDED about the application? Does it say that one should use such enhanced application? If yes, I do not see that the RECOMMENDED is the right term here, as it is nothing about the protocol, but more a recommendation for the user of such a traceroute application.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-11 for -06)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-11 for -06)
Unknown
I understand that the third paragraph of section 3.1 states that the address translation should provide additional information about the source address, and suggests that a pool of IPv4 addresses could be used to provide that additional information. Yet, the mechanism described in section 5 randomly chooses an IPv4 address from a pool of IPv4 addresses. I don't see how the random selection of the IPv4 address provides any information. I recognize that the IPv6 source address is carried in the ICMP extension. If the IPv4 address is chosen at random from a pool of addresses, what is the advantage over just using, as suggested in section 4, a single IPv4 address as the source address in all translated ICMP messages? In the interests of matching what I would think of as the meaning of the title and the actual mechanism, I would call this mechanism a "random selection mechanism". There is no mapping, as I would understand the word, involved. If, on the other hand, the pool were composed of IPv4 addresses that in some way convey topology information to the receiver, and the IPv4 source address were chosen based on the non-translatable IPv6 address, I would consider this mechanism to be a "mapping". I support Brian's Discuss about "What constitutes a non-translatable address?"
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-11 for -06)
Unknown
I've cleared under the understanding that this will move to PS
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-04 for -06)
Unknown
1) s1: r/document. states/document states 2) s2: The nits checker is complaining. I believe it's because the keywords aren't in quotes. 3) s3.1: slight rewording: OLD: The source address used, should not cause the ICMP packet to be a candidate for discarding. NEW: The source address used, should not cause the ICMP packet to be discarded. 4) s3.1: I find the the 2nd sentence in s3.1 odd - is 6145 only applicable to private internets? Isn't not using 1918-addresses really about not using these addresses on the internet as per RF 5735? Maybe: OLD: The possibility of uRPF filters in the path are a critical consideration [RFC3704] which precludes the use of private IPv4 address space [RFC1918] in this context. NEW: Private IPv4 address space [RFC1918] SHOULD NOT be used as the source addresses because they should not appear on the internet [RFC5735]. 5) s3.1: I think this is missing a verb OLD: Another consideration for source selection is that it be possible for the IPv4 recipients of the ICMP message to be able to distinguish ... NEW: Another consideration for source selection is that it should be possible for the IPv4 recipients of the ICMP message to be able to distinguish ... 6) s3.2: Once more with feeling ;) it's a BCP after all OLD: The recommended approach to source … NEW: The RECOMMENDED approach to source … 7) s4: Is the last sentence in s4 needed? If you're going to do the extension just do it. 8) s5: Need some motherhood an apple pie about picking a random number. Add a pointer to RFC 4086.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-10-10 for -06)
Unknown
It seems like "Updates: 6145" might be considered, and I support Robert's question regarding BCP vs PS in that respect.