IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 01:58 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 B221C3A6874 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:58:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.136
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.463, 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 Dq5FsjmiPLRm for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD223A6857 for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEADpvDUurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACKM7MWl22EMgSBcQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,289,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="109777361"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2009 01:58:18 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAQ1wIMT004431; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:58:18 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Simon Perreault' <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, behave@ietf.org
References: <C732B004.A876%rpenno@juniper.net> <4B0DBC9F.6030806@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:58:17 -0800
Message-ID: <05a701ca6e3b$ec729ae0$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcpuJms2m521SQYnTpa+h6+ScgkT+AAE809g
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
In-Reply-To: <4B0DBC9F.6030806@viagenie.ca>
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 01:58:23 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:behave-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:24 PM
> To: behave@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s 
> standardised protocols //re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> 
> On 11/25/2009 12:57 PM, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> > Most NAT redundancy schemes are 1+1 because the 
> > implementation specific issues above preclude a 
> > heterogeneous solution.
> 
> I guess the point is that NAT64 is precise enough that a 
> standard state sync protocol is possible.
>
> Compare with NAT44, which was never standardized.

Section 2 of draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 describes both
NAT44 and NAT64.  So you're suggesting its scope be reduced,
I believe.

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email