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

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dave Thaler
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 3:32 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; Dean Cheng
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> 
> Some other references:
> http://genie.iitd.ernet.in/wipo/report/node28.html seems to use
> it for mailbox sync in another thesis (with WinCE & Linux) in 2004.
> 
> http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/ipana/paperit/spiejose2.ppt
> discusses an implementation in 1999.
> 
> It also looks like Nortel might have IPR in this area:
> http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=YKYIAAAAEBAJ
> although I don't see anything in the IETF IPR database.

Cisco apparently, too.  I just asked the inventors to work with Cisco legal to
get an IPR declaration issued if one is necessary.

-d


> -Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:13 PM
> > To: Dean Cheng
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
> > 
> > It seems there was SCSP code in BSD some years ago, as part of the
> > ATM support:
> > 
> > http://www.freebsd.org/releases/3.0R/notes.html
> > 
> > Also for Linux, it seems to be tied to ATM:
> > 
> > http://www.digipedia.pl/man/doc/view/scspd.8.html
> > 
> > I also found an MSc thesis discussing SCSP in SunOS 5.6.
> > 
> > Regards
> >    Brian
> > 
> > On 2009-11-13 15:25, Dean Cheng wrote:
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > Behalf
> > > Of
> > >> Brian E Carpenter
> > >> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:55 PM
> > >> To: [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: [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.
> > >
> > > I don't know personally whether there is any available code, but
> > > RFC2335 and RFC2443 documented two separate applications 
> using SCSP,
> > > although also about 10 years ago.
> > >
> > > However, SCSP (as mentioned in my presentation) itself heavily
> > > "borrowed" link-state based algorithm and mechanisms from 
> OSPF/ISIS
> > > (also defined in 90's or earlier) that have been widely deployed
> > since.
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > Totally agreed.
> > >
> > > Dean
> > >
> > >>     Brian
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Behave mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Behave mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave