IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net> Thu, 26 November 2009 05:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rpenno@juniper.net>
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 E74CC3A69D1 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:32:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 3GZkUkCv7Aq3 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:32:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5953A67B2 for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSw4S1ssnwqbAUNEkqi9aebzftZPLOJo9@postini.com; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:32:08 PST
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:32:05 -0800
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:32:05 -0500
From: Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:32:03 -0500
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardised protocols //re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
Thread-Index: AcpuJmuar48cKJ3JRiG4bxYxD8xA5wAM1z8U
Message-ID: <C73352D3.A9C2%rpenno@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B0DBC9F.6030806@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.0.0.090609
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardised protocols //re: 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: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:32:14 -0000

On 11/25/09 3:24 PM, "Simon Perreault" <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:

> On 11/25/2009 12:57 PM, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
>> If the boxes are from different vendors or even different platforms from the
>> same vendor, how to deal with issues such as different memory footprint for
>> NAT state, different NAT implementations, different processor speeds, etc?
>> 
>> Most NAT redundancy schemes are 1+1 because the implementation specific
>> issues above preclude a heterogeneous solution.
> 
> I guess the point is that NAT64 is precise enough that a standard state
> sync protocol is possible.

The proposed protocol as it stands today covers NAT44 as well since NAT44 is
used in a few transition scenarios (DS-Lite and NAT444). And I think that is
why it has some potential.

Having said that, there will always be variation in implementation and the
protocol needs to cater for that by allowing extensions.

> 
> Compare with NAT44, which was never standardized.

Hummm....I would say the original BEHAVE RFCs made great strides in
standardizing NAT44. At this point I would argue the other way around - that
NAT44 behavior is more mature and well-known than NAT64.


> 
> Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email