RE: [Mipshop] Re: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIST 802.21)
"Robert Hancock" <robert.hancock@roke.co.uk> Thu, 03 August 2006 21:43 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8kyD-000683-Ve; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:43:09 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8kyB-000627-TU for mipshop@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:43:07 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8kWP-0000eF-0f for mipshop@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:14:25 -0400
Received: from rsys002x.roke.co.uk ([193.118.201.109]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8kMU-0005zy-BA for mipshop@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:04:12 -0400
Received: from rsys005a.comm.ad.roke.co.uk (rsys005a [193.118.193.85]) by rsys002x.roke.co.uk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k73L3vuX030571; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:03:57 +0100
Received: from ac78840 ([193.118.192.66]) by rsys005a.comm.ad.roke.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:03:57 +0100
From: Robert Hancock <robert.hancock@roke.co.uk>
To: 'Alexandru Petrescu' <alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com>, john.loughney@nokia.com
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] Re: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIST 802.21)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:03:55 +0100
Message-ID: <001a01c6b740$54fe74f0$6500000a@comm.ad.roke.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
In-Reply-To: <44D25725.5080201@motorola.com>
Importance: Normal
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2006 21:03:57.0371 (UTC) FILETIME=[55E838B0:01C6B740]
X-MailScanner-roke-co-uk: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-roke-co-uk-SpamCheck:
X-MailScanner-From: robert.hancock@roke.co.uk
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b
Cc: mipshop@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mipshop.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org
hi alex, > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com] > Sent: 03 August 2006 21:06 > To: john.loughney@nokia.com > Cc: mipshop@ietf.org > Subject: [Mipshop] Re: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIST 802.21) > > > john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > As chair of NSIS, I'd be happy to help with any discussion > of how GIST > > could be used with 802.21. As Robert ran through in the > meeting today, > > there are 5+ independent implementations of GIST, including > several open > > source implementations (I can send links, if there is interest) & we > > have had 2 interop events. > > > > We have been working on NAT traversal issues, and are looking at > > documenting these issues (currently there is an individual > submission on > > this issue), > > There seem to be several > draft-pashalidis-nsis-gist-legacynats-00.txt > draft-werner-nsis-natfw-nslp-statemachine-03.txt > draft-pashalidis-nsis-gist-legacynats-00 same as the first ;-) there is however also draft-pashalidis-nsis-gimps-nattraversal-03.txt > draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-12.txt > > which one? quick summary: *) draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-12.txt and *) draft-werner-nsis-natfw-nslp-statemachine-03.txt are actually about using NSIS to signal to NATs (and firewalls) to control them. so it's not directly relevant to mipshop (just like the QoS signalling work in NSIS is not directly relevant to NSIS). the other two are *) draft-pashalidis-nsis-gimps-nattraversal-03.txt [GIST used to be called GIMPS, hence the name] and *) draft-pashalidis-nsis-gist-legacynats-00 these are about how to get GIST *through* NATs - the first covers the case when you are allowed to modify the NAT, the second when you have to work with a legacy NAT. Both of them cover the path coupled case when you are signalling about a flow, which is very complicated from the NAT traveral point of view because you have to handle both addressing/port information about the flow, and about the signalling nodes. However ======= before directly looking at these, there is a more fundamental question about the MIH signalling requirements - namely, will the signalling messages carry addressing payloads (IP addresses of neighbour ARs for example, or of the MN). the right way to handle NAT traversal for the signalling depends critically on the answer to that. there is a little more discussion of that point in section 3.5 of the design considerations draft (draft-hepworth-mipshop-mih-design-considerations-00). cheers, robert h. > > Alex > > > _______________________________________________ > Mipshop mailing list > Mipshop@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop > _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Hancock, Robert
- [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 john.loughney
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 James Kempf
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 James Kempf
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Michael.G.Williams
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 john.loughney
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 john.loughney
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 john.loughney
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 john.loughney
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Junghoon Jee
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Hancock, Robert
- Re: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 James Kempf
- Re: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Yoshihiro Ohba
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 john.loughney
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Rahman, Akbar
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Roy, Radhika R.
- [Mipshop] Re: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIST 80… Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Alper Yegin
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Robert Hancock
- RE: [Mipshop] Re: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIS… Robert Hancock
- Re: [Mipshop] Re: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIS… Yoshihiro Ohba
- [Mipshop] RE: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIST 80… john.loughney
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Rahman, Akbar
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Michael.G.Williams
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Rahman, Akbar
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Hancock, Robert
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Alper Yegin
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Rahman, Akbar
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Sam Xia
- Re: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Yoshihiro Ohba
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Hancock, Robert
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Hepworth, Eleanor
- RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21 Alper Yegin