Technical Summary
This document discusses issues with the specific form of IPv6-IPv4
protocol translation mechanism implemented by the Network Address
Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) defined in RFC 2766. These
issues are sufficiently serious that recommending RFC 2766 as a
general purpose transition mechanism is no longer desirable, and this
document recommends that the IETF should reclassify RFC 2766 from
Proposed Standard to Historic status.
Working Group Summary
The v6ops working group reached consensus on this document.
Protocol Quality
David Kessens reviewed this document for the IESG
Note to RFC Editor
In header:
OLD:
Updates: 2766 (if approved)
NEW:
Obsoletes: 2766
In '6. Security Considerations':
OLD:
o Section 2.1 discusses how IPsec AH (transport and tunnel mode) and
IPsec ESP transport mode are broken by NAT-PT (when IPSEC UDP
encapsulation is not used [RFC3498]); and authentication and
encryption are generally incompatible with NAT-PT.
NEW:
o Section 2.1 discusses how IPsec AH (transport and tunnel mode) and
IPsec ESP transport mode are broken by NAT-PT (when IPsec UDP
encapsulation is not used [RFC3498]); and authentication and
encryption are generally incompatible with NAT-PT.
In section '8. Conclusion', first paragraph:
OLD:
This document has discussed a number of significant issues with
NAT-PT as defined in [RFC2766]. From a deployment perspective, 3GPP
networks are currently the only 'standardised' scenario where an
IPv6-only host communicates with an IPv4-only host using NAT-PT as
described in the 3GPP IPv6 transition analysis [RFC4215], but NAT-PT
has seen some limited usage for other purposes.
NEW:
This document has discussed a number of significant issues with
NAT-PT as defined in [RFC2766]. From a deployment perspective, 3GPP
networks are currently the only 'standardised' scenario where NAT-PT
is envisaged as a potential mechanism to allow communication between
an IPv6-only host and an IPv4-only host as discussed in the 3GPP IPv6
transition analysis [RFC4215], but RFC4215 recommends that the generic
form of NAT-PT should not be used, recommends that modified forms
should only be used under strict conditions and documents a number of
caveats and security issues specific to 3GPP. In addition, NAT-PT has
seen some limited usage for other purposes.
In section '8. Conclusion', second paragraph:
OLD:
It appears that
alternatives to NAT-PT exist to cover the circumstances where NAT-PT
has been suggested as a solution, such as the use of tunneling and
header compression in 3GPP scenarios.
NEW:
It appears that
alternatives to NAT-PT exist to cover the circumstances where NAT-PT
has been suggested as a solution, such as the use of application
proxies in 3GPP scenarios [RFC4215].