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

[<[e-mail]>]

Dear Cameron,

This may be true for 1+1 redundancy schemes, but what about N+1 ones?

Cheers
Med 
 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Cameron Byrne [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 25 novembre 2009 18:50
À : Xu Xiaohu
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed NCPI/NAD/TIP; Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardised protocols //re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Xu Xiaohu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
>> [e-mail]
>> 发送时间: 2009年11月13日 14:41
>> 收件人: Brian E Carpenter; [e-mail]
>> 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.
>

In the large scale NAT44 we run today, all vendors have 1+1
proprietary state sync.  They also sync configuration and other OAM
elements over this sync channel.  I do not think it is at all required
for vendors to have a standard state sync.  If I deploy multiple
vendors for NAT, i will keep the 1+1 pairs of the same vendor and use
different vendor 1+1 pairs for higher level network topology driven
redundancy, not local state synchronization.

Cameron Byrne
Principal Engineer
T-Mobile USA

> 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 : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
>> Brian E Carpenter
>> Envoyé : vendredi 13 novembre 2009 02:55
>> À : [e-mail]
>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [e-mail]
> 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.
********************************