Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Tue, 15 March 2011 15:18 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1923A6DBB; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 MikfVslpU4Vk; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D29FA3A6E0F; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=3739; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1300202369; x=1301411969; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ko8eCLuyaLQuQMsftQgALst7eZ5T5b0bGg9BG2EK6tc=; b=A1efMkVOwA+AFuRaPci8fToxcPiFMbshHjCmn+5YyhG4JiAnCGm/UwTT cq465sSocVxy+dJoE3AcZ/I+iWfYUhmSebBSB27qvkHiGCAk7QxjAeO18 rMNN7gwUhys0F/BjrUe1KKGrgKLTtWMrAa/iFK0wbFtVpVkUIh6kdVV87 g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvoAAAYgf02tJXHB/2dsb2JhbACYSoFki1p3pT+dCYViBIUw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,322,1297036800"; d="scan'208";a="347044199"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2011 15:19:28 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.196]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2FFJRNi005104; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:19:27 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com, 'Francis Dupont' <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>, pcp@ietf.org
References: <201103151019.p2FAJmhk073794@givry.fdupont.fr> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33C4DB02BCB@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33C4DB02BCB@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:19:27 -0700
Message-ID: <10f301cbe324$60300a40$20901ec0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acvi+oeJMbP5aOqLTRq6SOVByadhhAADuvHAAAZ7f0A=
Content-language: en-us
Cc: behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:18:21 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:14 AM > To: Francis Dupont; pcp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements > > Hi all, > > REQ-6 is an operational requirement which require more elaboration: > e.g., how an address pool is defined? Is there any hold-timer for the > re-use of the address pool? There really isn't a /need/ for two address pools. Rather, there is a need to not re-use an address within "some time period". I don't know the time period. It needs to be discussed. For EXAMPLE, let's say there is a CGN that crashes and takes 20 minutes to boot -- could it reasonably re-use the same IP address pool? 2 minutes to boot? 4 minutes? What is the amount of time needed. Today when ISPs force subscribers to change IP addresses, do they wait a day or an hour or a minute before re-using the IP address for another subscriber? > For operational requirements, I would prefer having something as what > is documented in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-behave-stateful- > nat-standby-06. > > In draft-xu-behave-stateful-nat-standby-06, you may read this > requirement which I would like see integrated in the CGN requirement I- > D: > > "Port forwarding entries SHOULD be stored in permanent storage > whatever the deployed redundancy mode." If a different address pool is going to be one of the requirements, though, such permanent storage serves no purpose. Essentially, I think we need to up-level the requirement to what we want to see on the wire, rather than how it should be implemented in the CGN. -d > > Cheers, > Med > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de > Francis Dupont > Envoyé : mardi 15 mars 2011 11:20 > À : pcp@ietf.org > Objet : [pcp] last CGN requirements > > Printing the new base-07, I am reading the new CGN requirement draft > (named draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-01.txt but LSN was replaced > by CGN everywhere at the exception of the title). > I can get: > > REQ-6: When a CGN loses state (due to a crash, reboot, failover to > a > cold standby, etc.), it MUST start using a different external > address pool. > > Justification: This is necessary in order to prevent collisions > between old and new mappings and sessions. It ensures that all > established sessions are broken instead of redirected to a > different peer. The previous address pool MAY of course be > reused > after a second loss of state. > > Three comments: > - the MUST applies to all mappings: static, explicit dynamic (i.e., > instantiated by PCP) and implicit dynamic. > > - it does not say something about the use of stable/persistent storage > to remove the condition (i.e., the when). > > - it is a pure operational requirement, for instance the MAY does not > make sense from a security point of view for long term mappings, > i.e., static or explicit dynamic. > > There are other interesting points (REQ-1 for instance) but IMHO it is > unfinished: logging section does not use the fact EIM is required for > instance. > > Regards > > Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr > > PS: Simon, I believe you want more comments? > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > pcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > pcp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
- [pcp] last CGN requirements Francis Dupont
- Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements Simon Perreault
- Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements Simon Perreault
- Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements Francis Dupont
- Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements Benson Schliesser
- Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements Francis Dupont
- Re: [pcp] last CGN requirements Francis Dupont