Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave)

Interim Meeting of

Note: This is a snapshot as of 2011-09-06. It may now be out of date.

Minutes | Agenda | Jabber Logs | Mailing List Archives

Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/behave

Chair(s):

Transport Area Area Director(s):



Meeting Slides:

No Slides Present

Internet-Drafts:

Request for Comments:

RFCStatusTitle
RFC4787 BCP Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP
RFC5128 I State of Peer-to-Peer(P2P) Communication Across Network Address Translators(NATs)
RFC5135 BCP IP Multicast Requirements for a Network Address Translator (NAT) and a Network Address Port Translator (NAPT)
RFC5382 BCP NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP
RFC5389 PS Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
RFC5508 BCP NAT Behavioral Requirements for ICMP
RFC5597 BCP Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
RFC5766 PS Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
RFC5769 I Test Vectors for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
RFC5780 E NAT Behavior Discovery Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
RFC5928 PS Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Resolution Mechanism
RFC6052 PS IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators
RFC6062 PS Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations
RFC6144 I Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation
RFC6145 PS IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm
RFC6146 PS Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers
RFC6147 PS DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers
RFC6156 PS Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6

Charter:

The working group creates documents to enable NATs to function in as
deterministic a fashion as possible.

To support deployments where communicating hosts require using different
address families (IPv4 or IPv6), address family translation is
needed to establish communication. In BEHAVE's specification work on
this topic it will coordinate with the V6ops WG on requirements and
operational considerations.

"An IPv4 network" or "an IPv6 network" in the descriptions below refer
to a network with a clearly identifiable administrative domain (e.g., an
enterprise campus network, a mobile operator's cellular network, a
residential subscriber network, etc.). It will also be that network that
deploys the necessary equipment for translation.

BEHAVE will adopt additional work items to finish four scenarios:
An IPv6 network to IPv4 Internet, IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network,
An IPv6 network to an IPv4 network, and An IPv4 network to an
IPv6 network. These additional work items include suggestions to
application developers to improve application interactions with
those translation scenarios.

The following scenario remains in scope for discussion, and new
milestones can be created to address this scenario:

* An IPv4 application running on an IPv6-only connected host to the
IPv6 Internet, i.e. perform translation between IPv4 and IPv6 for
packets in uni- or bi-directional flows that are initiated from an
IPv4 host towards an IPv6 host. The translator function is embedded
in the IPv4 host.

The following scenarios remain in scope for discussion, but creating
new milestones will require re-chartering:

* An IPv4 network to IPv6 Internet, i.e. perform translation between
IPv4 and IPv6 for packets in uni- or bi-directional flows that are
initiated from an IPv4 host towards an IPv6 host. The translator
function is intended to service a specific IPv4 network using either
public or private IPv4 address space.

* IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network, i.e. perform translation between
IPv4 and IPv6 for packets in uni- or bi-directional flows that are
initiated from an IPv4 host towards an IPv6 host. The translator
function is intended to service a specific IPv6 network where selected
IPv6 hosts and services are to be reachable.

* multicast translation, including control traffic (IGMP and MLD),
Single Source Multicast (SSM) and Any Source Multicast (ASM).

All translation solutions shall be capable of handling flows using TCP,
UDP, DCCP, and SCTP, unless they prevent a timely completion of the work
item. The parts of ICMP that can be translated are also required to work
across a translation solution. Additional protocols directly on top of
IP may be supported. Translation mechanisms must handle IP
fragmentation.

Translation mechanisms cannot transparently support protocols that embed
network addresses within their protocol messages without application
level gateways (ALGs). Because ALGs have security issues (like blocking
usage of TLS), are error prone and brittle, and hinder application
development, the usage of ALGs in the defined translators should be
avoided. Instead application developers will need to be aware and use
mechanisms that handle the address family translation. ALGs may be
considered only for the most crucial of legacy applications.

Solutions may solve more than one of the cases, however timely delivery
is more important than a unified solution.

Goals and Milestones:

Done   Submit BCP that defines unicast UDP behavioral requirements for NATs to IESG
Done   Submit a BCP that defines TCP behavioral requireents for NATs to IESG
Done   Submit a BCP that defines ICMP behavioral requirements for NATs to IESG
Done   Submit informational that discusses current NAT traversal techniques used by applications
Done   Submit BCP that defines multicast UDP
Done   Submit revision of RFC 3489 to IESG behavioral requirements for NATs to IESG
Done   Submit informational document for rfc3489bis test vectors
Done   Submit experimental document that describes how an application can determine the type of NAT it is behind
Done   Submit BCP document for DCCP NAT behavior
Done   Determine relative prioritization of the four translation cases. Documented in IETF74 minutes.
Done   Determine what solutions(s) and components are needed to solve each of the four cases. Create new milestones for the solution(s) and the components. Documented in IETF74 minutes.
Done   Submit to IESG: relaying of a TCP bytestream (std)
Done   Submit to IESG: relay protocol (std)
Done   Submit to IESG: TURN-URI document (std)
Done   Submit to IESG: IPv6 relay protocol (std)
Done   Submit to IESG: framework for IPv6/IPv4 translation (info)
Done   Submit to IESG: stateless IPv6/IPv4 translation (std)
Done   Submit to IESG: stateful IPv6/IPv4 translation (std)
Done   Submit to IESG: DNS rewriting for IPv6/IPv4 translation (std)
Done   Submit to IESG: IPv6 prefix for IPv6/IPv4 translator (std)
Done   Determine need and scope of multicast 6/4 translation
10-2010   Submit to IESG: FTP ALG for IPv6/IPv4 translation (std)
12-2010   Submit to IESG: large scale NAT requirements (BCP)
02-2011   Submit to IESG: Analysis of NAT-PT considerations with IPv6/IPv4 translation (info)
04-2011   Submit to IESG: avoiding NAT64 with dual-stack host for local networks (std)
04-2011   Submit to IESG: SCTP NAT behavior (BCP)
04-2011   Submit to IESG: NAT64 load balancing (std/info)
04-2011   Submit to IESG: host-based NAT46 translation for IPv4-only applications to access IPv6-only servers (std)