Unintended Consequences of NAT Deployments with Overlapping Address Space
RFC 5684

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-ford-behave-top-07.txt

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Unintended Consequence of two NAT deployments with Overlapping Address Space' <draft-ford-behave-top-07.txt> as an Informational RFC.

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12947&rfc_flag=0) 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Magnus Westerlund.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ford-behave-top-07.txt


The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary

   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.
   

Working Group Summary

   This is an RFC-editor independent submission. 

Document Quality

   This is an RFC-editor independent submission.

Personnel

   Magnus Westerlund was the responsible AD for the RFC 3932 
   recommendations.

RFC Editor Note

   The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in WG
   BEHAVE, but this does not prevent publishing.

IESG Note

      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on
      IETF review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
      The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
      discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.