IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] WG Adoption Call: Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814

"Sandor R. Repas Dr." <RSandor@ahol.co.hu> Mon, 13 June 2022 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <RSandor@ahol.co.hu>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A312C14CF07 for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O1HpK16g3pRN for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list.ahol.hu (list2.ahol.hu [IPv6:2a02:a50::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DBC3C14CF05 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ahol.co.hu ([185.143.48.44] helo=hold.ahol.co.hu) by list.ahol.hu with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <RSandor@ahol.co.hu>) id 1o0mSS-0006oO-OH; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 17:58:28 +0200
Received: from HOLD.ahol.co.hu ([fe80::f59a:dbad:cbe8:f70b]) by hold.ahol.co.hu ([fe80::f59a:dbad:cbe8:f70b%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0513.000; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:07:03 +0200
From: "Sandor R. Repas Dr." <RSandor@ahol.co.hu>
To: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
CC: "MORTON JR., AL" <acmorton@att.com>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption Call: Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814
Thread-Index: AdhpRzllfCAlDK57TLuaJBpSO96EyAV9VF6g
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 16:07:02 +0000
Message-ID: <147F6665B1980A4496AE5D06F45C002A025698F66C@hold.ahol.co.hu>
References: <CH0PR02MB798001E3E9D0D9977474DFF3D3CF9@CH0PR02MB7980.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CH0PR02MB798001E3E9D0D9977474DFF3D3CF9@CH0PR02MB7980.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: hu-HU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.40.108]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/yvHaSxDqC28MYHpQf8obAFd0q8s>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] WG Adoption Call: Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 16:07:21 -0000

Dear All,

In my opinion, a standard method for measuring the performance of NAT gateways is very important. So thank Lencse and Shima for the hard work. However, I found some potential problems with the proposal:
There are three assumptions in In section 4.4 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-03#section-4.4), and the second one is: 
 " 2.  The connection tracking table of the stateful NATxy is large enough to store all connections defined by the different source port number destination port number combinations."
It seems to be a rather strong assumption. How can one guarantee it?
Should one test it before the below described measurement methods can be used?

In section 4.5 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-03#section-4.5) the measurement procedure only counts the number of test frames arrived to the Responder, however, it is not checked, whether every single test frame resulted in adding a new connection to the connection tracking table of the DUT. (Can it happen in an overloaded situation that a frame is forwarded but the connection is not registered into the connection to the connection tracking table of the DUT?)
In Note 2: "2. As for the successful translation, the Responder MAY (or SHOULD?)  check that the source IP address is different than the original source IP address set by the Initiator."
However, even if the translation was successful, it is not an ultimate guarantee that the connection was established in the DUT.

Best regards,
Sandor

-----Original Message-----
From: bmwg <bmwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of MORTON JR., AL
Sent: 2022. május 16., hétfő 19:06
To: bmwg@ietf.org
Cc: bmwg-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [bmwg] WG Adoption Call: Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814

BMWG,

This message begins a WG Adoption call for 

    Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways using RFC 4814
    Pseudorandom Port Numbers
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lencse-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-03

The WG Adoption will run from May 16 to June 20, 2022.

BMWG has discussed this draft at several meetings and on the list. There has been a moderate level of interest.

Please review the latest draft and send comments and/or indications of support to the bmwg-list (bmwg@ietf.org) and/or to me (acmorton(at)att.com).

Thanks and best regards,
Al
bmwg co-chair

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email