Re: [BEHAVE] General Comments on xlate-stateful-07

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

Reinaldo Penno escribió:
> Hello,
>
> Comment inline...
>
>
>   
>>>  Moreover, the ability to
>>> configure the idle-timeout is also missing.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> right,
>>
>> i have added the follwoing text in all the occureences of the the
>> setting of the TCP session entry lifetite
>>
>>                     The lifetime of the TCP session table entry is set
>> to at least to the maximum session lifetime. The value for the maximum
>>                     session lifetime MAY be configurable but it MUST not
>> be less than TCP_EST (the
>>                     established connection idle timeout as defined in
>> <xref target="RFC5382"></xref>). The default value for the maximum
>> session lifetime
>>                     SHOULD be set to TCP_EST.
>>     
>
> The whole purpose to have it configurable was to be able to configure it to
> be _less_ than TCP_EST.
>
>   
no, that would break REQ5 of RFC5382 that reads:

   REQ-5:  If a NAT cannot determine whether the endpoints of a TCP
      connection are active, it MAY abandon the session if it has been
      idle for some time.  In such cases, the value of the "established
      connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be less than 2 hours 4 minutes.
      The value of the "transitory connection idle-timeout" MUST NOT be
      less than 4 minutes.
      a) The value of the NAT idle-timeouts MAY be configurable.


> The text above does not allow it to be set to less than TCP_EST. I suggest
>
> "The lifetime of the TCP session table entry is set
> to at least to the maximum session lifetime. The value for the maximum
> session lifetime MAY be configurable  The default value for the maximum
> session lifetime SHOULD be set to TCP_EST."
>
> Tuning TCP idle timeout is widely supported and used.
>
>   

right, but the minimum value MOST NOT be less than 2 hours and 4 min
>>     
>>> REQ-5: In the NAT64 spec the considerations on NAT throughput performance
>>> due to holding session state for TCP RST and TIME_WAIT assassinations due to
>>> holding session state are not discussed.
>>>   
>>>       
>> REQ5 leaves these aspects open and so the nat64 specification. Do you
>> have any particualr text that you would like to cinlcude in the nat64
>> spec w.r.t. this?
>>     
>
> The exact same text (or a reference to it) found in RFC5382.
>
>   
could you point out what exact same text you are referring to?

Regards, marcelo

> Regards,
>
> Reinaldo
>
>
>