Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardised protocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I am having trouble figuring out what this discussion is about.
We standardize protocols to enable interoperation.
Unless there is something special that requires that distinct devices 
come from the same vendor, we assume that they may come from different 
vendors, and that is why there is value in our work.

Whether a given operator chooses to use multiple vendors, or chooses to 
use one vendor, is a tradeoff made by that (enterprise, edge, or core) 
operator.  One could have (and folks have) exactly the same debate about 
routing protocols.

Yours,
Joel

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Xu Xiaohu escribió:
>>  
>>> -----邮件原件-----
>>> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
>>> Cameron Byrne
>>> 发送时间: 2009年11月26日 1:50
>>> 收件人: Xu Xiaohu
>>> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> 主题: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardised 
>>> protocols//re:
>>> draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Xu Xiaohu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>    
>>>>> -----邮件原件-----
>>>>> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> 发送时间: 2009年11月13日 14:41
>>>>> 收件人: Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]
>>>>> 主题: Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess that the question should be asked priori to yours:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we let vendors define their proprietary solutions or does the 
>>>>> IETF define
>>>>> a solution based on standardised protocols to achieve reliable state
>>>>> synchronisation?
>>>>>         
>>>> For a small enterprise network, maybe it's acceptable to deploy two 
>>>> or more
>>>>       
>>> NAT boxes purchased from the same vendor for redundancy. However, for 
>>> a large
>>> ISP network or large enterprise network, it is not reliable enough. 
>>> For example,
>>> an abnormal packet will cause the router OS to crash, it is not 
>>> absolutely
>>> acceptable. Hence I believe the standardization of NAT redundancy is 
>>> necessary.
>>>     In the large scale NAT44 we run today, all vendors have 1+1
>>> proprietary state sync.  They also sync configuration and other OAM
>>> elements over this sync channel.  I do not think it is at all required
>>> for vendors to have a standard state sync.  If I deploy multiple
>>> vendors for NAT, i will keep the 1+1 pairs of the same vendor and use
>>> different vendor 1+1 pairs for higher level network topology driven
>>> redundancy, not local state synchronization.
>>>     
>>
>> There is a possibility that some abnormal packets could cause the two 
>> NAT boxes (using the same OS) to crash simultaneously due to a bug in 
>> that OS.
> 
> the counter argument, is that if you have multiple implementation you 
> end up with the union of the sets of bugs of all implementations....
> 
> regards, marcelo
> 
> 
>>  I know this is an infrequent case which is acceptable for small 
>> enterprise networks. However, I wonder whether this failure is 
>> acceptable for all ISPs who deploy large scale NATs?
>>
>> Xiaohu
>>
>>
>>  
>>>> Xiaohu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>> From a service provider perspective, I'd like to see a solution 
>>>>> with IETF
>>>>>         
>>> stamp
>>>    
>>>>> so as to be included in our RFPs/analysis. Vendors are then free to 
>>>>> propose
>>>>> more reliable solutions, if any, compared to the one standardised 
>>>>> by IETF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Med
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>>> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la 
>>>>> part
>>>>>         
>>> de
>>>    
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter
>>>>> Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2009 02:55
>>>>> À : [e-mail]
>>>>> Objet : [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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Behave mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>>>>
>>>>> *********************************
>>>>> This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and
>>>>>         
>>> intended
>>>    
>>>>> solely for the addressees.
>>>>> Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
>>>>> Messages are susceptible to alteration.
>>>>> France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if 
>>>>> altered, changed
>>>>> or falsified.
>>>>> If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please 
>>>>> cancel it
>>>>> immediately and inform the sender.
>>>>> ********************************
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Behave mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>>>>         
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Behave mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Behave mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>>     
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Behave mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave