RE: IPv6 NAT?

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

 



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:28 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: IPv6 NAT?
> 
> Dan Wing wrote :
> 
> 
> 		""If a client host takes a new randomly chosen
> 		"privacy IID" for each of its outgoing 
> connections: (1) its 
> 		address and
> 		its chosen port will keep their E2E 
> significance; (2) no one will know
> 		where it is in its site; (3) any attempt to 
> call such an address will
> 		fail; (4) the host will easily clean up its 
> state when it knows a
> 		connection is finished, or when it resets, or 
> when its power is turned
> 		off; (5) no stateful logic is needed in any 
> intermediate box; (6)
> 		intermediate boxes are not concerned with 
> protocols used (UDP, TCP,
> 		SCTP...).""
> 		    
> 
> 	
> 	Sounds like RFC4941.
> 	  
> 
> Basically, it extends use of Privacy IIDs of RFC4941.
> 
> 
> 	I do not believe today's application developers are comfortable
> 	with determining if and when their application needs to perform
> 	the functions of RFC4941.
> 	
> 	  
> 
> It would not be an application concern.
> If users want this kind of strong privacy,

Typically, users don't know or care; more often it is the network
administrator that cares.

> they activate this 
> "extended privacy option" in their hosts.
> Then the stack below applications applies the "one new 
> address for each outgoing connection" rule.
> Addresses and ports keep their E2E significance for ALL applications.

Thanks for the educating me on where this feature would be implemented.  I
have long assumed that v6 privacy is something the application would need to
be involved with.


Is this functionality already available in Vista and Leopard?

-d


> On the opposite, if NATs MAY be present between the two ends, 
> applications are concerned.
> Some of them may have to work differently depending on 
> whether there is a NAT or not, and depending on which ALG 
> functions it performs.
> That is precisely what can be avoided thanks to IPv6 (and 
> IMHO SHOULD be avoided).
> 
> RD
> 
> 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]