Re: [radext] draft-cheng-behave-cgn-cfg-radius-ext-07 feedback

  Yes. I'll double check the document contents.  But the general idea was correct, I think. 

> On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:49 PM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Just for my clarification, we did not handle draft-cheng-behave-cgn-cfg-radius-ext during the meeting, thus which document is meant here then? I assume draft-ietf-radext-ip-port-radius-ext is meant here, right.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 7/25/2014 9:33 PM, Arran Cudbard-Bell kirjoitti:
>> Following up from the meeting at IETF90
>> 
>> SCTP/UDP encapsulation
>> ----------------------
>> RFC6951 does allow SCTP to be encapsulated by UDP packets.
>> The reasons stated in the RFC are for legacy NAT traversal, and to allow SCTP to be
>> implemented on hosts which do not allow direct access to the IP layer.
>> 
>> When tunnelling SCTP UDP/9899 is used, though this is not a requirement, and the RFC states
>> that other ports can be used.
>> 
>> Do people feel that it would be useful to be able to represent tunnelling with the attributes
>> of cgn-cfg?
>> 
>> Protocol enumeration
>> --------------------
>> Majority of NAT'd communications will likely be TCP/UDP ICMP, but there is no reason why
>> SCTP and other more exotic protocols couldn't be NAT'd.
>> 
>> To support arbitrary protocols, the extended IP-Port-Type attribute could reference the
>> IANA protocol numbers registry, with the caveat that the protocol referenced used ports
>> as connection identifiers.
>> 
>> Multiple IP-Port-Type attributes could be included to represent a port mapping in multiple
>> protocols (where enum values 1 and 2 are used currently).
>> 
>> Explicit references to TCP/UDP/ICMP other than where used as examples would then be removed.
>> 
>> Reporting for dynamic CGN sessions (PCP)
>> ----------------------------------------
>> ISPs are looking at NAT44 as a stopgap measure until v6 connectivity is sufficient to
>> run v6 only on CPEs.
>> 
>> UPnP to PCP gateways on the CPE allow legacy applications to work, by requesting specific
>> public ports on the NAT44 device.
>> 
>> Reporting for all N to 1 mappings required when used by ISPs for compliance reasons
>> (in the UK at least). Law enforcement needs to be able to map Public IP/Port to private
>> IP and subscriber.
>> 
>> Just to check, in these cases would IP-Port-Forwarding-Map would be used to report these
>> mappings, in a similar way as to how IP-Port-Range is used in Section 4.1.2?
>> 
>> Clarification around IP Port Allocation/De-allocation
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> Section 4.1.2 describes a method of reporting range allocation and range deallocation but
>> does not describe how to differentiate between the two.
>> 
>> Making an inference from other parts of the document, it seems that each Accounting-Request
>> packet records information about a single IP-Port-Range or IP-Port-Forwarding-Map
>> allocation/deallocation.
>> 
>> Are separate RADIUS accounting sessions then, generated for each IP-Port-Range or
>> IP-Port-Forwarding-Map? Should these sessions be linked to the subscriber's BNG session
>> with Acct-Multi-Session-Id?
>> 
>> Or alternatively are each of the Accounting-Requests just Interim-Updates, and if so how
>> do we know when a port allocation is being reported as opposed to deallocation?
>> 
>> -Arran
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> radext mailing list
>> radext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext