Subject: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-02 and NAT

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 14:25:11 -0700

In Section 9 of draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-02, "NAT" is used
in the RFC2119 language, although NAPT was discussed earlier.  RFC3022
defines "Basic NAT" and "NAPT", but does not define "NAT".  The
problem occurs with all kinds of address sharing -- which is defined
as NAPT in RFC3022.  Recent proposals in the A+P family, including
A+P, 4rd, Dual IVI, etc., also share IP addresses and should be covered
by draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update.

I suggest:

OLD:
   o  >> NATs MUST ensure that the IPv4 ID field of datagrams whose
      address or protocol are translated comply with requirements as if
      the datagram were sourced by the NAT.
NEW:
   o  >> Address sharing devices (e.g., NAPT [RFC3022]) MUST 
.........^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      ensure that the IPv4 ID field of datagrams whose
      address or protocol are translated comply with requirements as if
      the datagram were sourced by the NAT.

-d

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:26:21 -0700

Hi, Dan,

The text below is great. Agreed.

Joe

On 3/15/2011 2:25 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>     o>>  NATs MUST ensure that the IPv4 ID field of datagrams whose
>     o>>  Address sharing devices (e.g., NAPT [RFC3022]) MUST
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area