Unintended Consequences of NAT Deployments with Overlapping Address Space
draft-ford-behave-top-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2009-09-15
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2009-09-15
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-09-14
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2009-09-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-09-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-09-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-09-11
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 |
2009-09-10
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Cindy Morgan |
2009-09-10
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2009-09-09
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot comment] Thank you to the authors and RFC Ed for the changes made to this document. |
2009-09-09
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot discuss] |
2009-09-09
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Cullen Jennings has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Cullen Jennings |
2009-08-31
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Going for second RFC 3932 review due to extensive changes. |
2009-08-31
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-08-12
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ford-behave-top-07.txt |
2009-06-18
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-06-17
|
07 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-06-15
|
07 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-06-04
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Telechat date was changed to 2009-06-18 from 2009-06-04 by Cindy Morgan |
2009-06-04
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2009-06-04
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2009-06-03
|
07 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2009-06-03
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot discuss] I think document is confused about how two different interfaces can have the same IP and how that works. The advice about split … [Ballot discuss] I think document is confused about how two different interfaces can have the same IP and how that works. The advice about split VPN goes strongly against what the RAI area generally recommends. The advice about blocking IP that mach the IP of of the access router is really bad and goes against what pretty much every VPN product I could find to test actually does. I would like to talk on the call about if this draft is harmful for VPN deployments and if it should be DNP. |
2009-06-03
|
07 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-06-03
|
07 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-06-03
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-06-03
|
07 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-06-03
|
07 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-06-02
|
07 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] I'm confused by the example in section 3.2.4. Does the example discuss hijacking inbound mail, outbound mail or IMAP/POP access? Does this sentence … [Ballot comment] I'm confused by the example in section 3.2.4. Does the example discuss hijacking inbound mail, outbound mail or IMAP/POP access? Does this sentence from the second paragraph in 3.2.4 refer to NAT-2 in figure 1.1: Ideally, ISPs should not use NAT devices to provide connectivity to their customers. LSNs (large scale NATs) seem to be an inevitable example of deployments like NAT-2. Perhaps section 3.2.4 could be expanded to explain how NAT-2 and NAT-3 would be configured to accommodate inbound mail to a mail server on Host G? |
2009-06-02
|
07 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2009-05-25
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2009-05-25
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Ballot has been issued by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-05-25
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-05-25
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-05-25
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-05-25
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-05-25
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-05-25
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-04 by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-05-25
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Note field has been cleared by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-05-19
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-05-21 by Cindy Morgan |
2009-05-19
|
07 | Magnus Westerlund | Responsible AD has been changed to Magnus Westerlund from Russ Housley |
2009-05-08
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG, This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an Informational Independent Submission: draft-ford-behave-top-06.txt. Please let us know if this document … IESG, This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an Informational Independent Submission: draft-ford-behave-top-06.txt. Please let us know if this document conflicts with the IETF standards process or other work being done in the IETF community. Unintended Consequence of two NAT deployments with Overlapping Address Space This document identifies two deployment scenarios that have arisen from the unconventional network topologies formed using Network Address Translator devices (NATs). 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 enterprise intranet from remote locations has increasingly lead to overlapping private IP address space between remote and corporate networks. The 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. Four week timeout expires on 5 June 2009. |
2009-05-08
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-03-23
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ford-behave-top-06.txt |
2008-11-25
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ford-behave-top-05.txt |
2008-10-19
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ford-behave-top-04.txt |
2006-10-26
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ford-behave-top-03.txt |
2006-07-31
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ford-behave-top-02.txt |
2006-03-06
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ford-behave-top-01.txt |
2005-02-15
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ford-behave-top-00.txt |