IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] new nat mib question

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Tue, 19 June 2012 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.com>
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 E0C6311E8091 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.447, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 o-VhKEN1Kf+1 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BDE21F8606 for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail83-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.245) by VA3EHSOBE013.bigfish.com (10.7.40.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:46:38 +0000
Received: from mail83-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail83-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0B31E01A0; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:46:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -27
X-BigFish: VS-27(zz9371I542M1432Izz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah)
Received-SPF: pass (mail83-va3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail83-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail83-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1340135195241687_9772; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:46:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.254]) by mail83-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5E0360049; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:46:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by VA3EHSMHS024.bigfish.com (10.7.99.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:46:34 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.3; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:47:54 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.3; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:47:54 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.4.28]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:47:54 -0700
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [BEHAVE] new nat mib question
Thread-Index: AQHNTlMgTR076JfJpUq2sfVt43d84pcCCjEw
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:47:53 +0000
Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B666FE0@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <20120619193826.GA23555@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20120619193826.GA23555@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] new nat mib question
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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, 19 Jun 2012 19:48:02 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:38 PM
> To: behave@ietf.org
> Subject: [BEHAVE] new nat mib question
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have come across the new NAT MIB <draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib-01> and I
> am not sure I understand the scope of this effort and how the result will
> relate to the existing NAT-MIB in RFC 4008. 

My expectation was that it would either extend it by simply adding additional
objects that don't duplicate any functionality, or else obsolete it.

The draft is new and hasn't really had any significant review yet.

> The behave I-D says:
> 
>    [RFC4008] defines some objects for managing network address
>    translators (NATs).  Current operational practice often requires
>    additional objects, in particular for enterprise and Internet service
>    provider (ISP) deployments.  This document defines those additional
>    objects.
> 
>    This module is designed to be completely independent from [RFC4008].
>    A NAT implementation could be managed using this module, the one from
>    [RFC4008], or both
> 
> The first paragraph sounds like the goal is to define additional objects relative
> to the RFC 4008 NAT-MIB while the second paragraph says quite clearly that
> this is going to a competing MIB module. If so, this is, as far as I know, the
> first time we have two standards-track MIB modules for managing a single
> technology.

That should definitely not be the case, and like you do it seems, I object to
the second paragraph.

>  Can someone explain what the goal of this effort is or point me
> somewhere into the archives so I can inform myself? Note, it might very well
> be that the RFC 4008 NAT-MIB is seriously broken but then the proper
> approach would be to write a new MIB replacing the old MIB, sending RFC
> 4008 to historic.  Otherwise, it should be explained somewhere how the new
> MIB plays together with the NAT-MIB. (My background on this is essentially
> written down in draft-schoenw-behave-nat-mib-bis-00.)

Your expectations are correct.

> I also think NEW-NAT-MIB is not a good name. What is new today is going to
> be old tomorrow.

Absolutely agree.

-Dave
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email