[OPSAWG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt

Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi@cisco.com> Fri, 05 April 2013 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <shtsuchi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B0A21F9440 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMC3OkEjn04j for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268D421F942C for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 00:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2870; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1365145362; x=1366354962; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D+U66ocAKt+nhj8MreXoo6vWtNHqk0miQbjK71FdwNk=; b=Cza1gO6tEqgF0m0RfphnJa/gBSguB4MzjJCsTeFOv4hf12rZwGW/Kq5m QxixNlObem1pvMhO/V3gOGLbI/IFW3Paf0VwKr22Icg2PPHGLjpxD1MEJ Uj2WBCthnm1zbC9v4WsVZGjRYh5rdWDx7LuaNpNGlY/B3X4qIMeLYPBfF Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,413,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="28831959"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-2.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2013 07:02:36 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-141-42-168.cisco.com (dhcp-10-141-42-168.cisco.com [10.141.42.168]) by bgl-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3572W37023349; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 07:02:32 GMT
Message-ID: <515E7708.7010305@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:02:32 +0900
From: Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
References: <20130328141224.16450.34573.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130328141224.16450.34573.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130328141224.16450.34573.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 07:02:44 -0000

I read this documents.
I think this draft would be useful to consider CGP deployment for service providers.

And I have question.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-4
Figure 1: The number of sessions of applications.

Q.Which browser did you use in your investigation?

Our investigation shows that the average number of session of active subscriber is 400.

Q.Can you show more detail information? The investigation in the commercial network? or test bed?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-5.2
(a) was estimated to be 25% at the value during the busy hour of traffic (21:00 pm to 1:00am).

Q.Does the estimation come from your investigation on real network? or erlang and someting?
 What kind of network?Wireless or Wireline?IPv6 enabled network?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00#section-6.1

Q.Is current RFC not enough to measure CGN performance?
RFC 3511 Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3511
RFC6645 IP Flow Information Accounting and Export Benchmarking Methodology
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6645

Regards,
-Shishio

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:12:24 -0700
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Reply-To: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


	Title           : Carrier-Grade-NAT (CGN) Deployment Considerations.
	Author(s)       : Kaname Nishizuka
	Filename        : draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2013-03-28

Abstract:
   This document provides deployment considerations for Carrier-Grade-
   NAT (CGN) based on the verification result include the investigation
   of the number of sessions of applications.  The verification was
   conducted in StarBED which is one of the largest scale network
   experiment environment in Japan.  A million of subscribers was
   emulated and it revealed the realistic behavior of CGN.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nishizuka-cgn-deployment-considerations-00


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
.