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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 26 November 2009 02:11 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 E7BF73A6828 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:11:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.157
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.157 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.442, 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 Sp-8toDXxISl for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:11:10 -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 E65883A6805 for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:11:09 -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: ApwEAEtyDUurRN+J/2dsb2JhbACERIVusmOHDpBcgS+CLlUEgXE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,289,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="54144482"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2009 02:11:02 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAQ2B2ht029635; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:11:02 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Reinaldo Penno' <rpenno@juniper.net>, 'Xu Xiaohu' <xuxh@huawei.com>, mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com, 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, behave@ietf.org
References: <003401ca6db6$c2f6cc70$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <C732B004.A876%rpenno@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:11:01 -0800
Message-ID: <05b401ca6e3d$b3db3af0$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcpkBGV5WQWd75kNQhedwrf/iaLaiwAJkStAAmKLNPAAEPnACwAREqpA
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To: <C732B004.A876%rpenno@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardised protocols //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, 26 Nov 2009 02:11:12 -0000

> If the boxes are from different vendors or even different 
> platforms from the same vendor, how to deal with issues 
> such as different memory footprint for NAT state, different 
> NAT implementations, different processor speeds, etc?

If everyone everyone implements NAT44 or NAT64 the same (which they
won't), there will still be differences in pps vs. bandwidth
vs. new-mappings-per-second.

-d


> Most NAT redundancy schemes are 1+1 because the 
> implementation specific
> issues above preclude a heterogeneous solution.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Reinaldo
> 
> 
> On 11/25/09 2:05 AM, "Xu Xiaohu" <xuxh@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: behave-bounces@ietf.org
> > [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] 代表
> > mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
> > 发
> > 送时间: 2009年11月13日 14:41
> > 收件人: Brian E Carpenter; behave@ietf.org
> > 主题:
> > Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> > 
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > I guess
> > that the question should be asked priori to yours:
> > 
> > Do we let vendors
> > define their proprietary solutions or does the IETF define
> > a solution based
> > on standardised protocols to achieve reliable state
> > synchronisation?
> 
> For a
> > small enterprise network, maybe it's acceptable to deploy 
> two or more NAT
> > boxes purchased from the same vendor for redundancy. 
> However, for a large ISP
> > network or large enterprise network, it is not reliable 
> enough. For example,
> > an abnormal packet will cause the router OS to crash, it is 
> not absolutely
> > acceptable. Hence I believe the standardization of NAT redundancy is
> > necessary.
> 
> Xiaohu
> 
> 
> > From a service provider perspective, I'd like to see a
> > solution with IETF stamp
> > so as to be included in our RFPs/analysis. Vendors
> > are then free to propose
> > more reliable solutions, if any, compared to the
> > one standardised by IETF.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> > 
> > 
> > -----Message
> > d'origine-----
> > De : behave-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org]
> > De la part de
> > Brian E Carpenter
> > Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2009 02:55
> >
> > À : behave@ietf.org
> > Objet : [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> > 
> >
> > My question about this draft is whether there is available code and
> >
> > implementation experience with SCSP, which was defined in 1998.
> > 
> > If there
> > isn't code and experience, since it is a quite complex 
> design, I would
> > be a
> > bit worried.
> > 
> > On the other hand, I believe that something of the
> > complexity of SCSP is
> > absolutely required to provide reliable
> > synchronisation.
> > There is no simple, lightweight way to do this reliably.
> >
> > 
> >     Brian
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Behave
> > mailing list
> > Behave@ietf.org
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> > 
> >
> > *********************************
> > This message and any attachments (the
> > "message") are confidential and intended
> > solely for the addressees.
> > Any
> > unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
> > Messages are susceptible to
> > alteration.
> > France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if
> > altered, changed
> > or falsified.
> > If you are not the intended addressee of
> > this message, please cancel it
> > immediately and inform the sender.
> >
> > ********************************
> > 
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>