IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)

ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org> Tue, 18 June 2013 22:04 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 58EAC21E80CA for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, 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 dpEzKGS+tOs8 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cacaoweb.org (mail.cacaoweb.org [46.105.102.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CAE121F9A0B for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www-data by mail.cacaoweb.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ivan@cacaoweb.org>) id 1Up41Q-0001Xh-E8; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:05:04 +0200
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:05:04 +0200
From: ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org>
Organization: cacaoweb
In-Reply-To: <B14A62A57AB87D45BB6DD7D9D2B78F0B11731852@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
References: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02325A6E93@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> <2f7dce8264c8a9a72640629502a44295@cacaoweb.org> <B14A62A57AB87D45BB6DD7D9D2B78F0B11731852@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1769fef997bd7a220673fde14c5294cd@cacaoweb.org>
X-Sender: ivan@cacaoweb.org
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
Cc: Behave <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)
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, 18 Jun 2013 22:04:25 -0000

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:57:20 +0000, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)"
<rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:
> It seems worthwhile to differentiate home router NAT implementations
from
> enterprise/SP router NAT implementations. And the question to ask
ourselves
> is whether we need a common set of requirements for both scenarios !!
> 
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
> 
> 

Indeed, hopefully our new work in draft-ietf-behave-requirements-update-00
will help defining in what extent the requirements for both use cases (CGN
versus home gateways) might diverge.
We need to make each requirement's justification very clear and detailed,
so implementers can make informed decisions based on the intended usage.


-- 
_Ivan Chollet_

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email