Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 16 December 2011 06:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3A621F8540; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:29:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.591, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dRGagFP5Mu-j; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682C321F853B; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:29:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; l=2799; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1324016955; x=1325226555; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hqm8mX35WbphvxlZCyEqjbF8LOhiLbhU+G3RJPHUwsA=; b=XZxcc9p13zKLfxSPtRRx0Jnc14dWUo2JnJ4knFBlqFXAa25dhxiv4+TF /W5VvG1uW6tbEl9qxjUVPCIFMdnr+A1lm/OL6k6ycqB/QI8RJ0AewSZdu f3P3tLzh9OPgVJ+v8b53UM7QAIOOsp4YL/u+xrMOhF3vbX/5DkLVrB0aJ 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAKXj6k6Q/khN/2dsb2JhbABEhQyjeoJMgQWBcgEBAQQSARBEEQEQCxgCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYNAQcBAR6iMQGMW5FYgS+JP4EWBJR2kiw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,361,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="123915683"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2011 06:29:14 +0000
Received: from elear-mac.local (ams3-vpn-dhcp3793.cisco.com [10.61.78.209]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBG6TChp018235; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:29:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4EEAE539.6070005@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:29:13 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
References: <4EE79606.30704@cisco.com> <4EE8BF1F.9080901@viagenie.ca> <4EE99C03.6050401@cisco.com> <4EEA34FC.30008@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4EEA34FC.30008@viagenie.ca>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org, 'IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-05
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:29:17 -0000

Hi Simon,

Just to be clear, I'm not asking you to specifically support any
protocol, but to explain your logic as to what your requirements are. 
If you and the working group decide that it is not practical for one
reason or another to support DCCP (or any other protocol) that's fine. 
Just expose your logic.

Eliot

On 12/15/11 6:57 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2011-12-15 02:04, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, I don't know how to translate that into text. RFC6269
>>> appears clear
>>> to me. Do you have an example of text you would like to see?
>>
>> Don't end with this, but you can start with this.  Because
>> subscribers do not
>> receive unique IP addresses, Carrier Grade NATs introduce substantial
>> limitations
>> in communications between subscriber that were not previously there
>> .  In
>> particular, it is considerably more involved to establish proxy
>> functionality at
>> the subscriber border.  Some applications may require substantial
>> enhancements,
>> while some may not function at all in such an environment.  Please
>> see RFC 6269
>> for details.
>
> Tweaked a bit, gives this:
>
>      <t>Because subscribers do not receive unique IP addresses,
> Carrier Grade
>        NATs introduce substantial limitations in communications between
>        subscribers and with the rest of the Internet. In particular,
> it is
>        considerably more involved to establish proxy functionality at
> the border
>        between internal and external realms.  Some applications may
> require
>        substantial enhancements, while some others may not function at
> all in
>        such an environment.  Please see <xref target="RFC6269"/> for
>        details.</t>
>
>>>>   * Req1: Whither SCTP?  At the very least someone should say
>>>> something about why
>>>>     SCTP is NOT on the list.
>>>
>>> There are BEHAVE RFCs we can cite regarding NAT behaviour for TCP,
>>> UDP, and
>>> ICMP. There is none for SCTP. If there was one we could debate this.
>>> But right
>>> now it's just impossible to say "support SCTP" without saying how
>>> this is done.
>>
>> Dave addressed this.  What about DCCP and RFC 5596?  My main point is
>> that you
>> explain your logic as you did above.  And...
>
> You're right, there is an RFC specifying NAT behaviour for DCCP: RFC5597.
>
> On the one hand, as a probable future CGN captive, I'm tempted to say
> "all CGNs MUST support RFC5597!"
>
> On the other, I know it would probably be a frivolous requirement that
> won't get implemented.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Then there is also this: draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap-09
>
> Here's a proposal: add a sub-requirement saying something like "If a
> CGN forwards DCCP packets, then it MUST support [RFC5597]."
>
> Simon