Skip to main content

NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Communication
RFC 5207

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-05-16
04 (System) Changed document authors from "Martin Stiemerling" to "Martin Stiemerling, Lars Eggert, Juergen Quittek"
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from stiemerling@netlab.nec.de to (None)
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Kessens
2008-04-21
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2008-04-21
04 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5207' added by Amy Vezza
2008-04-18
04 (System) RFC published
2008-04-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-04-17
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-04-04
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2008-03-27
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-03-27
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-03-27
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-07-16
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza
2007-07-12
04 Mark Townsley [Note]: 'Still stuck! Email sent to Aaron on 7/12/2007...' added by Mark Townsley
2007-05-14
04 Mark Townsley State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Mark Townsley
2007-05-14
04 Mark Townsley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Mark Townsley
2007-03-15
04 Mark Townsley [Note]: 'Ready to be advanced, email sent to secretariat.' added by Mark Townsley
2007-03-07
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-03-07
04 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-04.txt
2007-01-17
04 Mark Townsley State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Mark Townsley
2007-01-15
04 Mark Townsley [Note]: 'Advancing according to: draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt<br>Waiting on RFC Editor''s note modifying abstract according to david kessens'' discuss comment.' added by Mark Townsley
2006-11-30
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-11-30
04 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Kessens has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by David Kessens
2006-11-30
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2006-11-30
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2006-11-30
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2006-11-30
04 Yoshiko Fong IANA Evaluation Comment:

No IANA Considerations section.
This document appears to have NO IANA Actions.
2006-11-30
04 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ted Hardie
2006-11-29
04 David Kessens
[Ballot discuss]
draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt says in section '2.1.  Research Group Preparation':

  The document should have a statement in the abstract identifying the
  document as …
[Ballot discuss]
draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt says in section '2.1.  Research Group Preparation':

  The document should have a statement in the abstract identifying the
  document as the product of the RG and a paragraph in the first
  section describing the level of support for the document (e.g., "this
  document represents the consensus of the FOOBAR RG", "the views in
  this document were considered controversial by the FOOBAR RG but the
  RG reached a consensus that the document should still be published")
  and the breadth of review for the document.

I cannot find any of this in the abstract.

draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt says in section '2.2.  Document Shepherds':

  Documents should have a shepherd.

I canot find any sign that there is a document shepherd
2006-11-29
04 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Kessens has been changed to Discuss from Abstain by David Kessens
2006-11-29
04 David Kessens
[Ballot comment]
This document does no harm whatsoever but I honestly wonder whether it
is useful for anything.

I have a hard time finding any …
[Ballot comment]
This document does no harm whatsoever but I honestly wonder whether it
is useful for anything.

I have a hard time finding any actual content in this document:

The document says in section '2.2.  Phase 2: ESP Data Exchange':

This section focuses on the first category, i.e., NAT-intrinsic
issues.  The two other problem categories are out of this document's
scope.  They are addressed in the BEHAVE working group or in
[RFC3489].

Two categories are out of scope, while the first category is NAT-intrinsic,
that is, there is nothing unique about the fact that we are dealing here
with HIP as opposed to IPsec or whatever else passing through a NAT.

Section 4 & 5 are other nice examples of stating the obvious.

Since this document comes out of the irtf, I wonder what the connection is with any 'research' done in the irtf as there is nothing new or research worthy in this document.
2006-11-29
04 David Kessens
[Ballot comment]
This document does no harm whatsoever but I honestly wonder whether it
is useful for anything.

I have a hard time finding any …
[Ballot comment]
This document does no harm whatsoever but I honestly wonder whether it
is useful for anything.

I have a hard time finding any actual content in this document:

The document says in section '2.2.  Phase 2: ESP Data Exchange':

This section focuses on the first category, i.e., NAT-intrinsic
issues.  The two other problem categories are out of this document's
scope.  They are addressed in the BEHAVE working group or in
[RFC3489].

Two categories are out of scope, while the first category is NAT-intrinsic,
that is, there is nothing unique about the fact that we are dealing here
with HIP as opposed to IPsec or whatever else passing through a NAT.

Section 4 & 5 are other nice examples of stating the obvious.

Since this document comes out of the irtf, I wonder what the connection is with any 'research' done in the irtf.
2006-11-29
04 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded by David Kessens
2006-11-29
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Eric Rescorla.
2006-11-29
04 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot comment]
Maybe not the best written document outthere. My primary concern is that it may in fact require some knowledge about the NAT/FW traversal …
[Ballot comment]
Maybe not the best written document outthere. My primary concern is that it may in fact require some knowledge about the NAT/FW traversal issues to understand correctly. The proposed solutions are also sometime a bit to vaguely described.
2006-11-29
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2006-11-29
04 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Brian Carpenter
2006-11-29
04 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
From the SecDir Review by Eric Rescorla:

  This document discusses the challenges of running HIP when one or both
  of the …
[Ballot comment]
From the SecDir Review by Eric Rescorla:

  This document discusses the challenges of running HIP when one or both
  of the parties is behind a NAT or Firewall.

  S 1.
  I'm not sure the NAT/ALG distinction you're promulgating here is that
  useful. Most things that people buy that are labelled "NAT" actually
  have some kind of ALG in them to modify things like DNS and FTP.
  So, the issue isn't ALG or not but rather how much ALG they have.

  S 2.1.1.
  I'm not sure I would structure this section this way. As you
  say, pure "basic NATs" are rare, so less text about them and
  more about the things that really occur would help.

  Given that you mention the topic of receivers behind a
  NAT, I think some mention of ICE would be appropriate.

  S 2.2.
  Is the idea here that this section only talks about HIP-specific
  stuff and that one should see 3715 for the ESP in general
  stuff? If not, this section needs to be a lot more complete.
  I haven't studied 3715 so can't say how complete that is.
2006-11-29
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2006-11-27
04 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2006-11-27
04 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2006-11-27
04 Mark Townsley [Note]: 'Advancing according to: draft-irtf-rfcs-00.txt' added by Mark Townsley
2006-11-27
04 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mark Townsley
2006-11-27
04 Mark Townsley Ballot has been issued by Mark Townsley
2006-11-27
04 Mark Townsley Created "Approve" ballot
2006-11-27
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2006-11-27
04 (System) Last call text was added
2006-11-27
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2006-11-27
04 Mark Townsley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Mark Townsley
2006-11-25
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla
2006-11-25
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla
2006-11-20
04 Dinara Suleymanova Shepherding AD has been changed to Mark Townsley from Brian Carpenter
2006-11-16
04 Amy Vezza Telechat date was changed to 2006-11-30 from 2006-11-16 by Amy Vezza
2006-11-16
04 Dinara Suleymanova Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested
2006-06-08
03 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-03.txt
2006-05-15
02 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-02.txt
2006-01-31
01 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-01.txt
2005-10-07
00 (System) New version available: draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-00.txt