IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 26 November 2009 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 CE23328C142 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:52:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 2KgWb2F1zWSr for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0618228C13D for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ringo.viagenie.ca (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000::67]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ACDDB20E1F for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:52:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B0E7A19.4000506@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:52:41 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: behave@ietf.org
References: <004301ca6e3b$304eb1f0$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <4B0E315A.1070104@it.uc3m.es> <4B0E33D6.8090902@joelhalpern.com> <4B0E37FF.4050103@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <4B0E37FF.4050103@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 12:52:47 -0000

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote, on 2009-11-26 03:10:
> I think we are basically exploring whether it is worth (and if it is
> possible) to standardize a  protocol to synchronize nat state.
> 
> The reason for doing that is that as you mention, there is a vlaue in
> allowing multiple boxes from multiple vendors to be used in synch i.e.
> interoperability.
> 
> The reasons for not doing so are less obvious i agree.

My concern is that with the immense variation in behaviour among current NAT44
implementations, there is a very low chance of success for a standardized NAT44
state synchronization protocol.

By only focusing on NAT64, we would increase our chances.

Simon
-- 
DNS64 open-source   --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server    --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0           --> http://www.vcarddav.org

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email