Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Tue, 08 December 2009 00:53 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 5F2EB28C13A for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:53:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, 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 e5QmvdZ20GB7 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:53:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1980F3A6896 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:53:04 -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 5A2A520DFB; Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:52:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B1DA364.5040505@viagenie.ca>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:52:52 -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: <C742901E.BACF%rpenno@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <C742901E.BACF%rpenno@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "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: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:53:05 -0000
On 12/07/2009 01:57 PM, Reinaldo Penno wrote: >> To elaborate further: Suppose I'm talking about a small/medium enterprise with >> the two NATs in sync sitting at the border of the Internet and their LAN. >> There >> are people working in the LAN, with, say, web browsers. They absolutely don't >> care about the difference in ICMP behaviours. > > I'm not sure about the people in the LAN but the enterprise operating the > NAT boxes cares. Actually in my mind I was referring to the people running the network. I think most of the time they will not care. I agree that someone could care, and that there should be a way to negotiate this as part of the protocol. > If all you send to the slave NAT is the private (IP address, port) protocol, > public (IP address and port), how will the slave box know which ICMP and > filtering behavior to apply to a certain NAT binding? > > Example: > > In vendors' 1 box the NAT mapping is > > SRC IP 2000::1, SRC PORT 1000, UDP -> Public IP 200.1.1.1, Public SRC Port > 2000 > > That mapping was a result of a 'rule match' in which amongst many rules > there was one saying: > > From: incoming interface 1, SRC IP 2000::/96 SRC PORT 10000-10500, protocol > UDP > To: outgoing interface 2, DST IP 2001::2, > NAT pool: 200.1.1.20-200.1.1.30, > Log: outgoing, binary > Timeout 30 seconds, > ICMP: no ICMPv4 for unsolicited > Filtering: allow incoming from 100.1.1.1-100.1.1.100, syslog > Port: Port parity. > > The part that you proposing to synch is the mapping ( SRC IP 2000::1, SRC > PORT 1000, UDP -> Public IP 200.1.1.1, Public SRC Port 2000 ), correct? Correct. (BTW, very good example!) > So, how will NAT slave determine all other behavior for each different > mapping as it receives the NAT state from the master? By ensuring that both NATs are configured with the same static configuration? > Scope clarification question based on what you said above: Since each > vendors' boxes are configured differently are you saying you will come up > with a configuration scheme common and acceptable by all vendors as part of > this effort so negotiation (configuration and behaviors) can succeed? Yes, it is very important to get the scope right. I think the scope should be limited to the choices that are present in the NAT64 spec. In your example above, the following would be out of scope: - Logging - Filtering (Not talking about NAT filtering behaviour. The example above is part of firewall functionality, not NAT.) How about that? > * Need to mention how the protocol will synch UPNP and NAT-PMP info You mean static configuration or just the bindings? I don't see how bindings would be synchronized differently that those created by outbound connection initiation. > * How the protocol will synch ALG info. > * IPSEc and other VPN/VRF issues In my mind the protocol would need to be extensible. The base spec would focus on NAT64. Extensions could be written for ALGs/IPsec/... Thanks, Simon -- DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca vCard 4.0 --> http://www.vcarddav.org
- [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