datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.7.4, 2014-11-12
Report a bug

Unintended Consequences of NAT Deployments with Overlapping Address Space
RFC 5684

Independent Submission                                      P. Srisuresh
Request for Comments: 5684                               EMC Corporation
Category: Informational                                          B. Ford
ISSN: 2070-1721                                          Yale University
                                                           February 2010

               Unintended Consequences of NAT Deployments
                     with Overlapping Address Space

Abstract

   This document identifies two deployment scenarios that have arisen
   from the unconventional network topologies formed using Network
   Address Translator (NAT) devices.  First, the simplicity of
   administering networks through the combination of NAT and DHCP has
   increasingly lead to the deployment of multi-level inter-connected
   private networks involving overlapping private IP address spaces.
   Second, the proliferation of private networks in enterprises, hotels
   and conferences, and the wide-spread use of Virtual Private Networks
   (VPNs) to access an enterprise intranet from remote locations has
   increasingly lead to overlapping private IP address space between
   remote and corporate networks.  This document does not dismiss these
   unconventional scenarios as invalid, but recognizes them as real and
   offers recommendations to help ensure these deployments can
   function without a meltdown.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any
   other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
   document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value
   for implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for
   publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
   Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any
   errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5684.

Srisuresh & Ford              Informational                     [Page 1]
RFC 5684           Complications from NAT Deployments      February 2010

Copyright

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http:trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction and Scope ..........................................3
   2. Terminology and Conventions Used ................................4
   3. Multi-Level NAT Network Topologies ..............................4
      3.1. Operational Details of the Multi-Level NAT Network .........6
           3.1.1. Client/Server Communication .........................7
           3.1.2. Peer-to-Peer Communication ..........................7
      3.2. Anomalies of the Multi-Level NAT Network ...................8
           3.2.1. Plug-and-Play NAT Devices ..........................10
           3.2.2. Unconventional Addressing on NAT Devices ...........11
           3.2.3. Multi-Level NAT Translations .......................12
           3.2.4. Mistaken End Host Identity .........................13
   4. Remote Access VPN Network Topologies ...........................14
      4.1. Operational Details of the Remote Access VPN Network ......17
      4.2. Anomalies of the Remote Access VPNs .......................18
           4.2.1. Remote Router and DHCP Server Address Conflict .....18
           4.2.2. Simultaneous Connectivity Conflict .................20
           4.2.3. VIP Address Conflict ...............................21
           4.2.4. Mistaken End Host Identity .........................22
   5. Summary of Recommendations .....................................22
   6. Security Considerations ........................................24
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................24
   8. References .....................................................25
      8.1. Normative References ......................................25
      8.2. Informative References ....................................25

Srisuresh & Ford              Informational                     [Page 2]
RFC 5684           Complications from NAT Deployments      February 2010

1.  Introduction and Scope

   The Internet was originally designed to use a single, global 32-bit
   IP address space to uniquely identify hosts on the network, allowing

[include full document text]