Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 02 December 2009 05:20 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
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 23BB93A68AA for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:20:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.329
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.270, 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 3Y5ZhGg5nVW9 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:20:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491123A67E1 for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:20:44 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAAqIFUurRN+J/2dsb2JhbACKN7RbmCyEMQSBag
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,327,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="56369184"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2009 05:20:36 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB25KaOC010052; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 05:20:36 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, 'Cameron Byrne' <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <4B156B5C.7060800@viagenie.ca> <003401ca72f1$7d0d0310$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <000001ca72f4$1e1a30a0$c3f0200a@cisco.com> <bcff0fba0912012037m3c24bbccyf6d9dde59299362d@mail.gmail.com> <4B15F0FC.5000509@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:20:36 -0800
Message-ID: <005a01ca730f$2e1ce630$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-reply-to: <4B15F0FC.5000509@joelhalpern.com>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-index: AcpzClI7Evjyrbb1SB2APNGIB81nDQABC+mw
Cc: behave@ietf.org, 'Xu Xiaohu' <xuxh@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//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: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:20:45 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:46 PM > To: Cameron Byrne > Cc: Dan Wing; behave@ietf.org; Xu Xiaohu > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s > standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 > > I believe we have agreed that we want to support the configuration of > multiple stateful NAT64s in a cluster sharing state (using the same > prefix, backing each other up / sharing load / ... ). > > While it is true that one can deploy that with solutions from > a single > vendor, it seems natural and consistent with the rest of what > we do here > that we want to allow folks to build such a cluster using > devices from > different vendors. Arguing about why an operator might or > might not do > that is a waste of time. Some will want multiple vendors. Some will > want a single vendor. Some will want the ability to migrate to a new > vendor. > > For the IETF therefore, the protocol for the state sharing seems a > sensible thing to standardize. FWIW, I will be asking my co-chair to decide WG consensus to move forward with NAT synchronization. -d > Yours, > Joel > > Cameron Byrne wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote: > >> ... > >>>> * Cluster = A set of synchronized NAT64 boxes sharing a > >>>> single Pref64::/n. > >>> Does that mean a set of NAT64 boxes within a cluster should > >>> be from a single > >>> vendor? If so, how to deal with the case that some abnormal > >>> packets cause > >>> NAT boxes (using the same OS) within a cluster to crash > >>> simultaneously due to a bug with that OS? > >> The vendor fixes the bug. > >> > > > > 100% agree. The counter to Xu Xiaohu's point is what happens when > > vendor X sends a buggy sync update to vendor Y, and now vendor Y > > crashes.... ok. We traded one unlikely (but real) bad situation for > > another unlikely but bad situation. > > > > > >> The operational complexity of running two NATs, from two > different vendors, is > >> very high: different CLIs, different alarming/alerting > (e.g., SYSLOG, SNMP, > >> per-session NAT logging), different features (e.g., IPsec > Passthru, SCTP), > >> different implementation of features (e.g., TCP MSS > adjustment, fragmentation > >> [timeouts? how much memory dedicated to reassembly? > out-of-order packets > >> supported?]), bandwidth and throughput (Mbps, pps), make > it too hard to > >> operate both NATs. > > > > 100% agree. > > > >> To my knowledge, sites do not run two different > implementations of DNS servers > >> (e.g., ISC BIND and InfoBlox, or Microsoft and Unbound) > where both DNSs back > >> up each other. Like NAT, DNS needs to be rock-solid > reliable, and a single > >> packet could take out a DNS server. > >> > >> -d > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Behave mailing list > >> Behave@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Behave mailing list > > Behave@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > >
- [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 xuxiaohu 41208
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dean Cheng
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dean Cheng
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Jan Melen
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dean Cheng
- [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardi… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Jan Melen
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dave Thaler
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dean Cheng
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Christian Huitema
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dave Thaler
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Xu Xiaohu
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s stand… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 Dan Wing