[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NAT64 and ICMP

On 2008-03-29 07:12, marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> Hi,
> another issue that was brought up by thomas in the v6ops meeting is
> w.r.t. ICMP translation.
> 
> With this respect, RFC4966 states:
> 
>   o  As described in Section 2.2 of [NATP-APP], there are no
>      equivalents in IPv6 for some ICMP(v4) messages, while for others
>      (notably the 'Parameter Problem' messages) the semantics are not
>      equivalent.  Translation of such messages may lead to the loss of
>      information.  However, this issue may not be very severe because
>      the error messages relate to packets that have been translated by
>      NAT-PT rather than by arbitrary packets.  If the NAT-PT is
>      functioning correctly, there is, for example, no reason why IPv6
>      packets with unusual extension headers or options should be
>      generated.
> 
> 
> So, do you think we need to impose more stringent requirement on ICMP
> translation than what NATPT/SIIT does? would it be possible to do any
> better?

I don't think so. The only thing I noted when writing the SHANTI draft
was that the translator will have to perform port demultiplexing
in order to dispatch ICMP messages translated from IPv4 to the
correct  IPv6 host. But that is a standard NAPT issue.

   Brian