Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 12 February 2010 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7402128C227 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:22:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hSRN8+Z2Hwb6 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:22:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB64C28C204 for <behave@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:22:56 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiwHAPpVdUurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACHTIESkiN0p1uXRYRYBIMT
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,463,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="239786466"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2010 21:24:16 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.196]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1CLOGvD011929; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:24:16 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: behave@ietf.org
References: <4AFCBC87.20009@gmail.com><C1463B96FBAB4A59B7B279C43BDCE778@china.huawei.com><4AFCDCBD.8090403@gmail.com> <E4561B14EE2A3E4E9D478EBFB5416E1B29B54AC5@TK5EX14MBXW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:24:16 -0800
Message-ID: <140701caac29$bb3d16e0$c4f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To:
Thread-Index: AcpkBJjRNZadzFp3+k2ifBL2nWT5oAAAwHhQABTAK4ACcuQLcAAFZ1lQD3tvOjA=
Cc: 'Dean Cheng' <Chengd@huawei.com>, 'Dave Thaler' <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:22:58 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 5:58 PM
> To: 'Dave Thaler'; 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Dean Cheng'
> Cc: 'behave@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: behave-bounces@ietf.org 
> > [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Thaler
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:32 PM
> > To: Brian E Carpenter; Dean Cheng
> > Cc: behave@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> > 
> > Some other references:
> > http://genie.iitd.ernet.in/wipo/report/node28.html seems to use
> > it for mailbox sync in another thesis (with WinCE & Linux) in 2004.
> > 
> > http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/ipana/paperit/spiejose2.ppt
> > discusses an implementation in 1999.
> > 
> > It also looks like Nortel might have IPR in this area:
> > http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=YKYIAAAAEBAJ
> > although I don't see anything in the IETF IPR database.
> 
> Cisco apparently, too.  I just asked the inventors to work 
> with Cisco legal to get an IPR declaration issued if one is necessary.

Cisco's IPR declaration on draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00.txt:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_searc
h=draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00.txt
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1261/

-d


> -d
> 
> 
> > -Dave
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:13 PM
> > > To: Dean Cheng
> > > Cc: behave@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> > > 
> > > It seems there was SCSP code in BSD some years ago, as part of the
> > > ATM support:
> > > 
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/releases/3.0R/notes.html
> > > 
> > > Also for Linux, it seems to be tied to ATM:
> > > 
> > > http://www.digipedia.pl/man/doc/view/scspd.8.html
> > > 
> > > I also found an MSc thesis discussing SCSP in SunOS 5.6.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > >    Brian
> > > 
> > > On 2009-11-13 15:25, Dean Cheng wrote:
> > > > Brian,
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > Of
> > > >> Brian E Carpenter
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:55 PM
> > > >> To: behave@ietf.org
> > > >> Subject: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> > > >>
> > > >> My question about this draft is whether there is available code
> > > >> and implementation experience with SCSP, which was 
> > defined in 1998.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know personally whether there is any available code, but
> > > > RFC2335 and RFC2443 documented two separate applications 
> > using SCSP,
> > > > although also about 10 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > However, SCSP (as mentioned in my presentation) itself heavily
> > > > "borrowed" link-state based algorithm and mechanisms from 
> > OSPF/ISIS
> > > > (also defined in 90's or earlier) that have been widely deployed
> > > since.
> > > >
> > > >> If there isn't code and experience, since it is a quite complex
> > > >> design, I would be a bit worried.
> > > >>
> > > >> On the other hand, I believe that something of the complexity
> > > >> of SCSP is absolutely required to provide reliable 
> > synchronisation.
> > > >> There is no simple, lightweight way to do this reliably.
> > > >
> > > > Totally agreed.
> > > >
> > > > Dean
> > > >
> > > >>     Brian
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Behave mailing list
> > > >> Behave@ietf.org
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Behave mailing list
> > > Behave@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Behave mailing list
> > Behave@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>