Re: [BEHAVE] [shara] Follow up on Layer2-Aware NAT(draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00)

"MILES DAVID" <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au> Tue, 31 March 2009 04:19 UTC

Return-Path: <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au>
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 41D6A3A6AE0; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 9hV0HpjGutLT; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342E13A6966; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (h135-1-218-53.lucent.com [135.1.218.53]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id n2V4KRDq026349; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:20:27 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail.apac.alcatel-lucent.com (h202-65-2-130.alcatel.com [202.65.2.130]) by ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (8.13.8/emsr) with ESMTP id n2V4KQRr010594; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:20:27 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sgsinsbhs02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com (sgsinsbhs02.ap.lucent.com [135.254.109.35]) by mail.apac.alcatel-lucent.com (8.13.7/8.13.7/Alcanet1.0) with ESMTP id n2V4JDve020692; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:19:13 +0800
Received: from SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com ([135.254.109.30]) by sgsinsbhs02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:20:25 +0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:20:21 +0800
Message-ID: <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D02FDFA42@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <021601c9b098$801cabd0$c2158182@NOE.Nokia.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] [shara] Follow up on Layer2-Aware NAT(draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00)
Thread-Index: AcmgdlhcsqF9XOaRSFmUv5LfTG7d5QAAEU/wA2dPQ2AASTlpgABXncyQAEgXtoA=
References: <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D02D5CE0A@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com><D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0B7FD6FE@ftrdmel1> <986DCE2E44129444B6435ABE8C9E424D02F7E95D@SGSINSMBS02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com> <021601c9b098$801cabd0$c2158182@NOE.Nokia.com>
From: MILES DAVID <David.Miles@alcatel-lucent.com.au>
To: Gabor Bajko <gaborbajko@gmail.com>, pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com, behave@ietf.org, shara@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2009 04:20:25.0145 (UTC) FILETIME=[03BAEA90:01C9B1B8]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 202.65.2.130
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [shara] Follow up on Layer2-Aware NAT(draft-miles-behave-l2nat-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: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 04:19:33 -0000

Hi Gabor,

I understand that the last slide was far too generalized. 

All transition solutions will involve a degree of IPv4 if they involve a
v4 client - in L2-Aware NAT there is a component of IPv4 NAPT but this
does not preclude the approach from using IPv4-in-IPv6 tunneling
solutions.

You'll get no objection from me that IPv4 is a dead-end - what we are
trying to do is provide -minimal- support for IPv4 during the transition
period to IPv6.

Cheers,

-David

-----Original Message-----
From: Gabor Bajko [mailto:gaborbajko@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:02 AM
To: MILES DAVID; pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com; behave@ietf.org;
shara@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] [shara] Follow up on Layer2-Aware
NAT(draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00)

There were a number of inconsistencies on the comparison slide (eg, that
IPv4 traffic is subject to NAPT in case of A+P, etc). 

It has to be clearly stated that what this solution offers is a
technological dead-end, as there is no evolution path away from IPv4 in
it. 

- gabor


  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
  >Of MILES DAVID
  >Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:27 PM
  >To: pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com; behave@ietf.org; shara@ietf.org
  >Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [shara] Follow up on Layer2-Aware
NAT(draft-miles-
  >behave-l2nat-00)
  >
  >Pierre,
  >
  >Thanks for the support. The presentation of draft-nishitani-cgn-01
  >outlined a good way forward - here the Network Model was separated
from
  >the core NAT Function. I think a L2-Aware NAT best belongs in a core
  >document like this.
  >In this way L2-Aware NAT could make up an optional component of the
core
  >NAT Function (in the way it describes a Virtual NAT [tables]
facility).
  >On top of this a variety of network models could be created and
  >documented - these could even come from other working groups (such as
  >Softwires).I believe a core NAT function (regardless of whether we
  >describe IPv4 or IPv6) fits well in BEHAVE.
  >
  >Applying the mechanisms in L2-Aware NAT to PRR makes a lot of sense
as
  >well - I'm wondering if port-range solutions could be described
(perhaps
  >poorly) as similar to a NAPT mapping function (outside-ip/port to
  >inside-ip/port) however in the case of PRR, the pairs are the
  >same/common - in effect a address/port translation does not occur.
What
  >do you think of attempting to describe the PRR function like this?
  >
  >If agreeable I would like to invite the authors of PRR/A+P and CGN
  >drafts to work within the bounds of a new draft that describes a core
  >NAT function (without drawing reference to size or scale) -
introducing
  >elements of core NAT function (CGN/LSN) virtual NAPT tables (L2-Aware
  >NAT), and mappings tables where translation is not applied (PRR).
  >
  >Best Regards,
  >
  >-David
  >
  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
  >Of pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com
  >Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:17 AM
  >To: behave@ietf.org; shara@ietf.org
  >Subject: [shara] Follow up on Layer2-Aware NAT
  >(draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00)
  >
  >The comment I had on the mike during behave session 2:
  >
  >This kind of work is very valuable, it is worth not only for CGN but
  >also for Port Ranges solutions and for all IPv4 shortage solutions.
  >As we presented it in the shara BoF all solutions basically:
  >1) Put a dedicated function in an ISP Box (CGN, PRR, whatever)
  >2) Use some sort of transport mechanism (tunneling, layer 2,
whatever)
  >between customers and ISPBox,
  >3) Are confronted with the same issues: how to force a route from
  >customers to ISPBox, how to route back from ISPBox to relevant
customer,
  >how to identify the customer.
  >
  >This would advocate for seeing all work related to IPv4 shared
addresses
  >host in the same place, under the same ombrella.
  >
  >
  >Regards
  >
  >Pierre
  >_______________________________________________
  >shara mailing list
  >shara@ietf.org
  >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara
  >_______________________________________________
  >Behave mailing list
  >Behave@ietf.org
  >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave