GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc7857

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Penno Request for Comments: 7857 Cisco BCP: 127 S. Perreault Updates: 4787, 5382, 5508 Jive Communications Category: Best Current Practice M. Boucadair, Ed. ISSN: 2070-1721 Orange

                                                          S. Sivakumar
                                                                 Cisco
                                                              K. Naito
                                                                   NTT
                                                            April 2016
Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements

Abstract

 This document clarifies and updates several requirements of RFCs
 4787, 5382, and 5508 based on operational and development experience.
 The focus of this document is Network Address Translation from IPv4
 to IPv4 (NAT44).
 This document updates RFCs 4787, 5382, and 5508.

Status of This Memo

 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.
 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
 Contributions published or made publicly available before November
 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
 than English.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   1.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 2.  TCP Session Tracking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.1.  TCP Transitory Connection Idle-Timeout  . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.2.  TCP RST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 3.  Port Overlapping Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 4.  Address Pooling Paired (APP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
 5.  Endpoint-Independent Mapping (EIM) Protocol Independence  . .   8
 6.  Endpoint-Independent Filtering (EIF) Protocol Independence  .   8
 7.  Endpoint-Independent Filtering (EIF) Mapping Refresh  . . . .   8
   7.1.  Outbound Mapping Refresh and Error Packets  . . . . . . .   9
 8.  Port Parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
 9.  Port Randomization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
 10. IP Identification (IP ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 11. ICMP Query Mappings Timeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 12. Hairpinning Support for ICMP Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
 14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
 Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1. Introduction

 [RFC4787], [RFC5382], and [RFC5508] contributed to enhance Network
 Address Translation (NAT) interoperability and conformance.
 Operational experience gained through widespread deployment and
 evolution of NAT indicates that some areas of the original documents
 need further clarification or updates.  This document provides such
 clarifications and updates.

1.1. Scope

 The goal of this document is to clarify and update the set of
 requirements listed in [RFC4787], [RFC5382], and [RFC5508].  The
 document focuses exclusively on NAT44.
 The scope of this document has been set so that it does not create
 new requirements beyond those specified in the documents cited above.
 Requirements related to Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) are defined in
 [RFC6888].

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

1.2. Terminology

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
 The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology defined in
 [RFC2663], [RFC4787], [RFC5382], and [RFC5508].
 In this document, the term "NAT" refers to both "Basic NAT" and
 "Network Address/Port Translator (NAPT)" (see Section 3 of
 [RFC4787]).  As a reminder, Basic NAT and NAPT are two variations of
 traditional NAT in that translation in Basic NAT is limited to IP
 addresses alone, whereas translation in NAPT is extended to include
 IP addresses and transport identifiers (such as a TCP/UDP port or
 ICMP query ID); refer to Section 2 of [RFC3022].

2. TCP Session Tracking

 [RFC5382] specifies TCP timers associated with various connection
 states but does not specify the TCP state machine a NAT44 should
 follow as a basis to apply such timers.
 Update:  The TCP state machine depicted in Figure 1, adapted from
    [RFC6146], SHOULD be implemented by a NAT for TCP session tracking
    purposes.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

                  +----------------------------+
                  |                            |
                  V                            |
               +------+   Client               |
               |CLOSED|-----SYN------+         |
               +------+              |         |
                   ^                 |         |
                   |TCP_TRANS T.O.   |         |
                   |                 V         |
               +-------+          +-------+    |
               | TRANS |          |  INIT |    |
               +-------+          +-------+    |
                 |    ^               |        |
           data pkt   |               |        |
                 | Server/Client RST  |        |
                 |  TCP_EST T.O.      |        |
                 V    |           Server SYN   |
            +--------------+          |        |
            | ESTABLISHED  |<---------+        |
            +--------------+                   |
             |           |                     |
       Client FIN    Server FIN                |
             |           |                     |
             V           V                     |
      +---------+   +----------+               |
      |  C FIN  |   |  S FIN   |               |
      |   RCV   |   |    RCV   |               |
      +---------+   +----------+               |
          |             |                      |
      Server FIN      Client FIN            TCP_TRANS
          |             |                    T.O.
          V             V                      |
      +----------------------+                 |
      |   C FIN + S FIN RCV  |-----------------+
      +----------------------+
  Legend:
    * Messages sent or received from the server are
      prefixed with "Server".
    * Messages sent or received from the client are
      prefixed with "Client".
    * "C" means "Client-side".
    * "S" means "Server-side".
    * TCP_EST T.O. refers to the established connection
      idle-timeout as defined in [RFC5382].
    * TCP_TRANS T.O. refers to the transitory connection
      idle-timeout as defined in [RFC5382].
         Figure 1: Simplified Version of the TCP State Machine

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

2.1. TCP Transitory Connection Idle-Timeout

 The transitory connection idle-timeout is defined as the minimum time
 a TCP connection in the partially open or closing phases must remain
 idle before the NAT considers the associated session a candidate for
 removal (REQ-5 of [RFC5382]).  However, [RFC5382] does not clearly
 state whether these can be configured separately.
 Clarification:  This document clarifies that a NAT SHOULD provide
    different configurable parameters for configuring the open and
    closing idle timeouts.
    To accommodate deployments that consider a partially open timeout
    of 4 minutes as being excessive from a security standpoint, a NAT
    MAY allow the configured timeout to be less than 4 minutes.
    However, a minimum default transitory connection idle-timeout of 4
    minutes is RECOMMENDED.

2.2. TCP RST

 [RFC5382] leaves the handling of TCP RST packets unspecified.
 Update:  This document adopts a similar default behavior as in
    [RFC6146].  Concretely, when the NAT receives a TCP RST matching
    an existing mapping, it MUST translate the packet according to the
    NAT mapping entry.  Moreover, the NAT SHOULD wait for 4 minutes
    before deleting the session and removing any state associated with
    it if no packets are received during that 4-minute timeout.
    Notes:
  • Admittedly, the NAT has to verify whether received TCP RST

packets belong to a connection. This verification check is

       required to avoid off-path attacks.
  • If the NAT immediately removes the NAT mapping upon receipt of

a TCP RST message, stale connections may be maintained by

       endpoints if the first RST message is lost between the NAT and
       the recipient.

3. Port Overlapping Behavior

 REQ-1 from [RFC4787] and REQ-1 from [RFC5382] specify a specific port
 overlapping behavior; that is, the external IP address and port can
 be reused for connections originating from the same internal source
 IP address and port irrespective of the destination.  This is known
 as Endpoint-Independent Mapping (EIM).

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

 Update:  This document clarifies that this port overlapping behavior
    may be extended to connections originating from different internal
    source IP addresses and ports as long as their destinations are
    different.
    The following mechanism MAY be implemented by a NAT:
       If destination addresses and ports are different for outgoing
       connections started by local clients, a NAT MAY assign the same
       external port as the source ports for the connections.  The
       port overlapping mechanism manages mappings between external
       packets and internal packets by looking at and storing their
       5-tuple (protocol, source address, source port, destination
       address, and destination port).
    This enables concurrent use of a single NAT external port for
    multiple transport sessions, which allows a NAT to successfully
    process packets in a network that has a limited number of IP
    addresses (e.g., deployment with a high address space
    multiplicative factor (refer to Appendix B of [RFC6269])).

4. Address Pooling Paired (APP)

 The "IP address pooling" behavior of "Paired" (APP) was recommended
 in REQ-2 from [RFC4787], but the behavior when an external IPv4 runs
 out of ports was left undefined.
 Clarification:  This document clarifies that if APP is enabled, new
    sessions from a host that already has a mapping associated with an
    external IP that ran out of ports SHOULD be dropped.  A
    configuration parameter MAY be provided to allow a NAT to start
    using ports from another external IP address when the one that
    anchored the APP mapping ran out of ports.  Tweaking this
    configuration parameter is a trade-off between service continuity
    and APP strict enforcement.  Note, this behavior is sometimes
    referred to as "soft-APP".
    As a reminder, the recommendation for the particular case of a CGN
    is that an implementation must use the same external IP address
    mapping for all sessions associated with the same internal IP
    address, be they TCP, UDP, ICMP, something else, or a mix of
    different protocols [RFC6888].
 Update:  This behavior SHOULD apply also for TCP.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

5. Endpoint-Independent Mapping (EIM) Protocol Independence

 REQ-1 from [RFC4787] and REQ-1 from [RFC5382] do not specify whether
 EIM are protocol dependent or protocol independent.  For example, if
 an outbound TCP SYN creates a mapping, it is left undefined whether
 outbound UDP packets can reuse such mapping.
 Update:  EIM mappings SHOULD be protocol dependent.  A configuration
    parameter MAY be provided to allow protocols that multiplex TCP
    and UDP over the same source IP address and port number to use a
    single mapping.  The default value of this configuration parameter
    MUST be protocol-dependent EIM.
    This update is consistent with the stateful Network Address and
    Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers (NAT64)
    [RFC6146] that clearly specifies three binding information bases
    (TCP, UDP, and ICMP).

6. Endpoint-Independent Filtering (EIF) Protocol Independence

 REQ-8 from [RFC4787] and REQ-3 from [RFC5382] do not specify whether
 mappings with Endpoint-Independent Filtering (EIF) are protocol
 independent or protocol dependent.  For example, if an outbound TCP
 SYN creates a mapping, it is left undefined whether inbound UDP
 packets matching that mapping should be accepted or rejected.
 Update:  EIF filtering SHOULD be protocol dependent.  A configuration
    parameter MAY be provided to make it protocol independent.  The
    default value of this configuration parameter MUST be protocol-
    dependent EIF.
    This behavior is aligned with the update in Section 5.
    Applications that can be transported over a variety of transport
    protocols and/or support transport fallback schemes won't
    experience connectivity failures if the NAT is configured with
    protocol-independent EIM and protocol-independent EIF.

7. Endpoint-Independent Filtering (EIF) Mapping Refresh

 The NAT mapping Refresh direction may have a "NAT Inbound refresh
 behavior" of "True" according to REQ-6 from [RFC4787], but [RFC4787]
 does not clarify how this behavior applies to EIF mappings.  The
 issue in question is whether inbound packets that match an EIF
 mapping but do not create a new session due to a security policy
 should refresh the mapping timer.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

 Clarification:  This document clarifies that even when a NAT has an
    inbound refresh behavior set to "TRUE", such packets SHOULD NOT
    refresh the mapping.  Otherwise, a simple attack of a packet every
    two minutes can keep the mapping indefinitely.
 Update:  This behavior SHOULD apply also for TCP.

7.1. Outbound Mapping Refresh and Error Packets

 Update:  In the case of NAT outbound refresh behavior, ICMP Errors or
    TCP RST outbound packets sent as a response to inbound packets
    SHOULD NOT refresh the mapping.  Other packets that indicate the
    host is not interested in receiving packets MAY be configurable to
    also not refresh state, such as a Session Traversal Utilities for
    NAT (STUN) error response [RFC5389] or IKE INVALID_SYNTAX
    [RFC7296].

8. Port Parity

 Update:  A NAT MAY disable port parity preservation for all dynamic
    mappings.  Nevertheless, A NAT SHOULD support means to explicitly
    request to preserve port parity (e.g., [RFC7753]).
    Note: According to [RFC6887], dynamic mappings are said to be
    dynamic in the sense that they are created on demand, either
    implicitly or explicitly:
    1.  Implicit dynamic mappings refer to mappings that are created
        as a side effect of traffic such as an outgoing TCP SYN or
        outgoing UDP packet.  Implicit dynamic mappings usually have a
        finite lifetime, though this lifetime is generally not known
        to the client using them.
    2.  Explicit dynamic mappings refer to mappings that are created
        as a result, for example, of explicit Port Control Protocol
        (PCP) MAP and PEER requests.  Explicit dynamic mappings have a
        finite lifetime, and this lifetime is communicated to the
        client.

9. Port Randomization

 Update:  A NAT SHOULD follow the recommendations specified in
    Section 4 of [RFC6056], especially:
       A NAPT that does not implement port preservation [RFC4787]
       [RFC5382] SHOULD obfuscate selection of the ephemeral port of a
       packet when it is changed during translation of that packet.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 9] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

       A NAPT that does implement port preservation SHOULD obfuscate
       the ephemeral port of a packet only if the port must be changed
       as a result of the port being already in use for some other
       session.
       A NAPT that performs parity preservation and that must change
       the ephemeral port during translation of a packet SHOULD
       obfuscate the ephemeral ports.  The algorithms described in
       this document could be easily adapted such that the parity is
       preserved (i.e., force the lowest order bit of the resulting
       port number to 0 or 1 according to whether even or odd parity
       is desired).

10. IP Identification (IP ID)

 Update:  A NAT SHOULD handle the Identification field of translated
    IPv4 packets as specified in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC6864].

11. ICMP Query Mappings Timeout

 Section 3.1 of [RFC5508] specifies that ICMP Query mappings are to be
 maintained by a NAT.  However, the specification doesn't discuss
 Query mapping timeout values.  Section 3.2 of [RFC5508] only
 discusses ICMP Query session timeouts.
 Update:  ICMP Query mappings MAY be deleted once the last session
    using the mapping is deleted.

12. Hairpinning Support for ICMP Packets

 REQ-7 from [RFC5508] specifies that a NAT enforcing Basic NAT must
 support traversal of hairpinned ICMP Query sessions.
 Clarification:  This implicitly means that address mappings from
    external address to internal address (similar to Endpoint-
    Independent Filters) must be maintained to allow inbound ICMP
    Query sessions.  If an ICMP Query is received on an external
    address, a NAT can then translate to an internal IP.
 REQ-7 from [RFC5508] specifies that all NATs must support the
 traversal of hairpinned ICMP Error messages.
 Clarification:  This behavior requires a NAT to maintain address
    mappings from external IP address to internal IP address in
    addition to the ICMP Query mappings described in Section 3.1 of
    [RFC5508].

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 10] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

13. Security Considerations

 NAT behavioral considerations are discussed in [RFC4787], [RFC5382],
 and [RFC5508].
 Because some of the clarifications and updates (e.g., Section 2) are
 inspired from NAT64, the security considerations discussed in
 Section 5 of [RFC6146] apply also for this specification.
 The update in Section 3 allows for an optimized NAT resource usage.
 In order to avoid service disruption, the NAT must not invoke this
 functionality unless the packets are to be sent to distinct
 destination addresses.
 Some of the updates (e.g., Sections 7, 9, and 11) allow for increased
 security compared to [RFC4787], [RFC5382], and [RFC5508].
 Particularly,
 o  the updates in Sections 7 and 11 prevent an illegitimate node to
    maintain mappings activated in the NAT while these mappings should
    be cleared, and
 o  port randomization (Section 9) complicates tracking hosts located
    behind a NAT.
 Sections 4 and 12 propose updates that increase the serviceability of
 a host located behind a NAT.  These updates do not introduce any
 additional security concerns to [RFC4787], [RFC5382], and [RFC5508].
 The updates in Sections 5 and 6 allow for a better NAT transparency
 from an application standpoint.  Hosts that require a restricted
 filtering behavior should enable specific policies (e.g., Access
 Control List (ACL)) either locally or by soliciting a dedicated
 security device (e.g., firewall).  How a host updates its filtering
 policies is out of scope of this document.
 The update in Section 8 induces security concerns that are specific
 to the protocol used to interact with the NAT.  For example, if PCP
 is used to explicitly request parity preservation for a given
 mapping, the security considerations discussed in [RFC6887] should be
 taken into account.
 The update in Section 10 may have undesired effects on the
 performance of the NAT in environments in which fragmentation is
 massively experienced.  Such an issue may be used as an attack vector
 against NATs.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

14. References

14.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC4787]  Audet, F., Ed. and C. Jennings, "Network Address
            Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
            UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787, January
            2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787>.
 [RFC5382]  Guha, S., Ed., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P.
            Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142,
            RFC 5382, DOI 10.17487/RFC5382, October 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5382>.
 [RFC5508]  Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT
            Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5508, April 2009,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5508>.
 [RFC6056]  Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
            Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6056, January 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6056>.
 [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
            NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
            Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
            April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
 [RFC6864]  Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
            RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864>.

14.2. Informative References

 [RFC2663]  Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
            Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
            RFC 2663, DOI 10.17487/RFC2663, August 1999,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2663>.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

 [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
            Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.
 [RFC5389]  Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
            "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389>.
 [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and
            P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6269, June 2011,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6269>.
 [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
            P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
 [RFC6888]  Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa,
            A., and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade
            NATs (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, DOI 10.17487/RFC6888,
            April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6888>.
 [RFC7296]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
            Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
            (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
            2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
 [RFC7753]  Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Sivakumar, S., Zhou, C., Tsou, T.,
            and S. Perreault, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Extension
            for Port-Set Allocation", RFC 7753, DOI 10.17487/RFC7753,
            February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7753>.

Acknowledgements

 Thanks to Dan Wing, Suresh Kumar, Mayuresh Bakshi, Rajesh Mohan, Lars
 Eggert, Gorry Fairhurst, Brandon Williams, and David Black for their
 review and discussion.
 Many thanks to Ben Laurie for the SecDir review and Dan Romascanu for
 the Gen-ART review.
 Dan Wing proposed some text for the configurable errors in
 Section 7.1.

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 13] RFC 7857 Updates to NAT Behavioral Requirements April 2016

Contributors

 The following individual contributed text to the document:
    Sarat Kamiset
    Insieme Networks
    United States

Authors' Addresses

 Reinaldo Penno
 Cisco Systems, Inc.
 170 West Tasman Drive
 San Jose, California  95134
 United States
 Email: repenno@cisco.com
 Simon Perreault
 Jive Communications
 Canada
 Email: sperreault@jive.com
 Mohamed Boucadair (editor)
 Orange
 Rennes  35000
 France
 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
 Senthil Sivakumar
 Cisco Systems, Inc.
 United States
 Email: ssenthil@cisco.com
 Kengo Naito
 NTT
 Tokyo
 Japan
 Email: k.naito@nttv6.jp

Penno, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 14]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7857.txt · Last modified: 2016/04/28 22:30 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki