Subject: (ngtrans) draft-ietf-ngtrans-bia-03.txt

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:17:32 +0900

i have reviewed draft-ietf-ngtrans-bia-03.txt and am prepared to
process it for iesg review as experimental.  but first, could it
please have some fix-ups as follows?

rfc ed may whine about the abbrev in the title.

section 6 should have a warning that, like a nat, it will not work
for applications which embed v4 address in payloads.

section 7, security, should note that use of address pooling opens
a dos vulnerability.

[ it could use a grammar/clarity clean-up pass.  but it can be
  understood without too much of a struggle, so what the heck.  it
  could also benefit from an extremely simplified walk-through up
  front, so the reader knows the lay of the land before wandering
  into it.  but i am willing to push it to the iesg without. ]

thanks.

randy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:12:35 -0400

> for applications which embed v4 address in payloads.

and like a nat, might BIA also break several other kinds of 
applications?

I haven't done the analysis myself for BIA but perhaps it would be
appropriate to look at 
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/what-nats-break.html or
draft-moore-nat-tolerance-recommendations-00.txt to see
which other assumptions/practices (besides embedding
addresses in payload) fail in the presence of BIA.

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:07:12 +0200

My assumption is that BIA's impact is isomorphic with NAT-PT's. This should
indeed be stated.

   Brian

---

From: JJ Behrens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:10:17 -0700

<snip>
>   into it.  but i am willing to push it to the iesg without. ]
</snip>

I volunteer to help with the grammar, as I did with another draft.  The authors
may contact me personally if they desire my help.

Cheers,
-jj

-- 
Users of C++ should consider hanging themselves rather than shooting their 
legs off--it's best not to use C++ simply as a better C.