A YANG Module for Network Address Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation (NPT)
RFC 8512

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

Ignas Bagdonas Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2018-09-25 for -16)
No email
send info
Thanks for the easy-to-read document!  I just have a few comments and potential nits
I noticed.

It was somewhat interesting to me that basically everything is config rw, including ports and
addresses that would normally be assigned internally by the NAT, but I don't see this as

Section 2.1

                              Considerations about instructing explicit
   dynamic means (e.g., [RFC6887], [RFC6736], or [RFC8045]) are out of
   scope.  [...]

I'm having trouble parsing this; is it maybe "instructing by explicit
dynamic means" or "explicit dynamic mappings"?

Section 3

What's the relationship between hold-down-timeout and hold-down-max -- that
is, if the maximum number of ports in the pool gets hit, to the oldest
ports in the pool get ejected even if they haven't timed out, or what

I don't expect this to need to be in the document, but I'm curious what the
use case for the all-algs-enable leaf is.

I may be confused, but is the ordering relationship between low-threshold
and high-threshold correct?  From the description it would seem like we
need low < high, but I'm reading the text as requiring low >= high.
Also, the error-message for that "must" stanza talks about port numbers,
not percentage thresholds.

        container connection-limits {
          list limit-per-protocol {
            leaf limit {
              type uint32;
                "Rate-limit the number of protocol-specific mappings
                 and sessions per instance.";

This is a maximum, not a rate-limit, I think?

Section A.6

   EAMs may be enabled jointly with statefull NAT64.  This example shows
   a NAT64 function that supports static mappings:

nit: "stateful"

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Comment (2018-09-25 for -16)
No email
send info
Shouldn't the "psid-offset" have a default value of 6 for the 'a' bits in MAP-E?

Mirja K├╝hlewind (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2018-09-24 for -16)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my discuss well and quickly! Also thanks for the other changes to further consider other protocols such as DCCP and SCTP!

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Adam Roach No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection