Re: [shara] [BEHAVE] Follow up on Layer2-Aware NAT(draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00)

["Gabor Bajko" <[e-mail]>]

There were a number of inconsistencies on the comparison slide (eg, that
IPv4 traffic is subject to NAPT in case of A+P, etc). 

It has to be clearly stated that what this solution offers is a
technological dead-end, as there is no evolution path away from IPv4 in it. 

- gabor


  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
  >Of MILES DAVID
  >Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:27 PM
  >To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
  >Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [shara] Follow up on Layer2-Aware NAT(draft-miles-
  >behave-l2nat-00)
  >
  >Pierre,
  >
  >Thanks for the support. The presentation of draft-nishitani-cgn-01
  >outlined a good way forward - here the Network Model was separated from
  >the core NAT Function. I think a L2-Aware NAT best belongs in a core
  >document like this.
  >In this way L2-Aware NAT could make up an optional component of the core
  >NAT Function (in the way it describes a Virtual NAT [tables] facility).
  >On top of this a variety of network models could be created and
  >documented - these could even come from other working groups (such as
  >Softwires).I believe a core NAT function (regardless of whether we
  >describe IPv4 or IPv6) fits well in BEHAVE.
  >
  >Applying the mechanisms in L2-Aware NAT to PRR makes a lot of sense as
  >well - I'm wondering if port-range solutions could be described (perhaps
  >poorly) as similar to a NAPT mapping function (outside-ip/port to
  >inside-ip/port) however in the case of PRR, the pairs are the
  >same/common - in effect a address/port translation does not occur. What
  >do you think of attempting to describe the PRR function like this?
  >
  >If agreeable I would like to invite the authors of PRR/A+P and CGN
  >drafts to work within the bounds of a new draft that describes a core
  >NAT function (without drawing reference to size or scale) - introducing
  >elements of core NAT function (CGN/LSN) virtual NAPT tables (L2-Aware
  >NAT), and mappings tables where translation is not applied (PRR).
  >
  >Best Regards,
  >
  >-David
  >
  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
  >Of [e-mail]
  >Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:17 AM
  >To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
  >Subject: [shara] Follow up on Layer2-Aware NAT
  >(draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00)
  >
  >The comment I had on the mike during behave session 2:
  >
  >This kind of work is very valuable, it is worth not only for CGN but
  >also for Port Ranges solutions and for all IPv4 shortage solutions.
  >As we presented it in the shara BoF all solutions basically:
  >1) Put a dedicated function in an ISP Box (CGN, PRR, whatever)
  >2) Use some sort of transport mechanism (tunneling, layer 2, whatever)
  >between customers and ISPBox,
  >3) Are confronted with the same issues: how to force a route from
  >customers to ISPBox, how to route back from ISPBox to relevant customer,
  >how to identify the customer.
  >
  >This would advocate for seeing all work related to IPv4 shared addresses
  >host in the same place, under the same ombrella.
  >
  >
  >Regards
  >
  >Pierre
  >_______________________________________________
  >shara mailing list
  >[e-mail]
  >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara
  >_______________________________________________
  >Behave mailing list
  >[e-mail]
  >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave