[IPFIX] revising IPFIX IES 281 and 282
Paul Aitken <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipfix |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear experts,
I propose to request that IANA modify IEs 281 and 282 to remove "NAT64"
from their descriptions, to make them generic post-NAT-IPv6-adddress
fields per their names.
And also take the opportunity to update
"draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12" to RFC6146.
ie, removing the text in *red* below, and adding the text in *green*.
Perhaps we should add some other NAT RFCs, or entirely remove the last
sentence, "See ... for specification" ?
Support? Feedback? Objections?
Thanks,
P.
281 postNATSourceIPv6Address ipv6Address current
The definition of this Information Element is identical to
the definition of Information Element 'sourceIPv6Address',
except that
it reports a modified value caused by a *NAT64* middlebox
function after
the packet passed the Observation Point.
See [RFC2460] for the definition of the Source Address field
in the IPv6
header. See [RFC3234] for the definition of middleboxes. See
*http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12*
*RFC6146* for
nat64 specification.
282 postNATDestinationIPv6Address ipv6Address current
The definition of this Information Element is identical to
the definition of Information Element
'destinationIPv6Address', except
that it reports a modified value caused by a *NAT64*
middlebox function
after the packet passed the Observation Point.
See [RFC2460] for the definition of the Destination Address
field in the
IPv6 header. See [RFC3234] for the definition of middleboxes. See
*http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12*
*RFC6146* for
nat64 specification.
_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix