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 >
- [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