IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 03 December 2009 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 B7B103A6826 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 04:15:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, 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 0vqhb9XROf34 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 04:15:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8C43A67F0 for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 04:15:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balaise.nomis80.org (modemcable245.152-21-96.mc.videotron.ca [96.21.152.245]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 333D321BCA; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:15:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B17ABE7.9020108@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:15:35 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090922 Fedora/3.0-3.9.b4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Reinaldo Penno <rpenno@juniper.net>
References: <C73C6D2B.B448%rpenno@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <C73C6D2B.B448%rpenno@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, 'Xu Xiaohu' <xuxh@huawei.com>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.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: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:15:46 -0000

On 12/02/2009 10:14 PM, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
> Let's assume you have NAT-A and NAT-B from different vendors. NAT-A is
> processing packets for 3 NAT sessions and as master have synched these 3 NAT
> sessions to NAT-B.
>
> If NAT-A fails and NAT-B takes over, how can you guarantee that NAT-B will
> be able to handle these sessions in terms of packets per second?

Assuming s/NAT/NAT64/g...

This is an operational issue. You just ensure that this will work when 
you buy and deploy A and B. Check spec sheets, chat with vendors, 
perform tests, etc.

What's your point?

Simon
-- 
DNS64 open-source   --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server    --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0           --> http://www.vcarddav.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email