Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00

Jan Melen <jan.melen@nomadiclab.com> Sun, 15 November 2009 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jan.melen@nomadiclab.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 934433A6876 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:37:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.938
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311]
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 B304eHpa5m9K for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from n2.nomadiclab.com (n2.nomadiclab.com [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508A83A6857 for <behave@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by n2.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDE31EF1EA; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:37:47 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com
Received: from n2.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xk1i-q3hyvn2; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:37:46 +0200 (EET)
Received: from esealmw967.eemea.ericsson.se (inside.nomadiclab.com [193.234.219.2]) by n2.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9911EF12E; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:37:45 +0200 (EET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Jan Melen <jan.melen@nomadiclab.com>
In-Reply-To: <21422_1258094445_4AFCFF6D_21422_40641_1_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F307914E625D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:37:45 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <42867872-BDDE-42BA-ABF9-4953CEC92B9C@nomadiclab.com>
References: <4AFCBC87.20009@gmail.com> <21422_1258094445_4AFCFF6D_21422_40641_1_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F307914E625D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] 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: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:37:25 -0000

Hi all,

If we are planning to standardize something should we also take a look  
at existing open source solutions that are not based on SCSP such as  
OpenBSD pfsync http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=pfsync&sektion=4 
   which is used pretty widely at least in the BSD community for nat(/ 
fw) state synchronization?

   Regards,
     Jan

On Nov 13, 2009, at 8:40 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com 
 > wrote:

>
> 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?
>
> 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