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 >
- [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 xuxiaohu 41208
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dean Cheng
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dean Cheng
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Jan Melen
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dean Cheng
- [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardi… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Jan Melen
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dave Thaler
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dean Cheng
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Christian Huitema
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dave Thaler
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dan Wing