Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation and CGNs

ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org> Tue, 02 July 2013 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ivan@cacaoweb.org>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFF921F9BD3 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 8Oj6Lt4QUiiR for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cacaoweb.org (mail.cacaoweb.org [46.105.102.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B027221F9BB7 for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www-data by mail.cacaoweb.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ivan@cacaoweb.org>) id 1Uu5Fm-00011I-D6; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:24:38 +0200
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:24:38 +0200
From: ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org>
Organization: cacaoweb
In-Reply-To: <51CAA325.8080201@viagenie.ca>
References: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02325AA8EE@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> <9637befefe07c43417c758a004e03f3c@cacaoweb.org> <51C4053D.5050703@viagenie.ca> <b863f14098e41ecbb3fe4ca56641d053@cacaoweb.org> <51CAA325.8080201@viagenie.ca>
Message-ID: <d83e9f8fe5450d3af0afdc36a253ce8b@cacaoweb.org>
X-Sender: ivan@cacaoweb.org
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
Cc: Behave <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation and CGNs
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ivan@cacaoweb.org
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:23:45 -0000

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:15:33 +0200, Simon Perreault
<simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:
> Le 2013-06-25 19:20, ivan c a écrit :
>>> Some NATs don't implement EDM and thus cannot switch to it.
>>>
>>
>> By definition, all NATs are "EDM".
> 
> Please explain.
> 
>> "Endpoint-dependent Mapping" really means "Address and port-dependent
>> Mapping". This is the most general case of NAT, where no requirement is
>> made on the type of mapping. For instance, "EIM" is a particular case
of
>> this general case.
> 
> I don't understand how this could be true.

"Endpoint-dependent Mapping" definition is that mappings with the same
internal endpoint may be assigned to different external endpoints.
It is verified for all NATs.


> 
>> Maybe we should use the term APDM instead of EDM for the sake of
clarity,
>> but the best is probably to avoid using the "EDM" acronym altogether if
>> it
>> leads to confusion.
> 
> EDM is defined in RFC 6887. Let's keep using already-defined terminology

> if it fits.

If it doesn't confuse anyone, I have no problem using it. See above.
Although new acronyms in general are best avoided since they require
readers to learn new acronyms for no particular reason.


> 
>> Instead, we can use the term "no particular
>> requirement
>> on the mapping scheme" or something similar. This way, people new to
the
>> discussion can understand the point immediately and we also avoid the
use
>> of new obscure acronyms.
> 
> EIM and EDM are not requirements. They are qualifiers of NAT behaviour.

Nope, "Endpoint-Independent Mapping" can be a requirement, for example REQ
1. of RFC 4787.


> 
>> Again, the goal here should be to suggest options for NAT to behave in
>> p2p
>> friendly ways. Some useful optional features for CGNs, like port
>> overloading, do have minor caveats that should be detailed in the
>> document,
>> and they also don't apply to "3-tuple" NATs as you mentioned.
>> This is the best way in my opinion to write a Best Current Practices
>> document.
> 
> I would simply like to first understand technically what you're
proposing.

Sounds great.

> 
> Simon

-- 
_Ivan Chollet_