IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] ALG section in draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06

"Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com> Fri, 25 February 2011 03:51 UTC

Return-Path: <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8236E3A67C2 for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:51:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.696
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.961, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, 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 ylsZSJyfj3oO for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcimo01.potomac.co.ndcwest.comcast.net [76.96.32.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954B13A68C5 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([24.40.55.41]) by copdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503630.27266478; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:03:33 -0700
Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::a5b0:e5c4:df1b:2367]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::11d4:f530:37a0:9f4e%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:51:46 -0500
From: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
To: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] ALG section in draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06
Thread-Index: AQHL1J9STjQTkrRMkEiVy3NY6Q3WCw==
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:51:45 +0000
Message-ID: <C98C913F.9678%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <AFAC7900-C6F2-4DCA-9CD5-804A0D310294@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115
x-originating-ip: [147.191.125.14]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <0CCA29DCE34BF14696D4D8FCF607348C@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] ALG section in draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 03:51:00 -0000

This is a follow-up to the WG. We agreed with Dan and Mark, we will update
the draft to reflect this change in next revision.

Thanks,
Yiu

On 2/23/11 11:29 AM, "Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>I'd like to see all softwire documents be as silent as possible on
>specifics of NAT. The essential delta in ds-lite vs. a NAT44 CGN is that
>the tunnel is embedded within the NAT binding.  I think the softwire
>documents should explain this, then point to behave for anything else
>that has to do with operating a CGN. We are the tunneling folks here, the
>translation folks are down the corridor.
>
>- Mark
>
>
>On Feb 23, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06 says:
>> 
>>   8.3. Application Level Gateways (ALG)
>> 
>>   The AFTR should only perform a minimum number of ALG for the classic
>>   applications such as FTP, RTSP/RTP, IPsec and PPTP VPN pass-through
>>   and enable the users to use their own ALG on statically or
>>   dynamically reserved ports instead.
>> 
>> Comments:
>> 
>> * To my knowledge, this would be the first time IETF suggests using an
>>ALG
>> in a NAT44 in a standards-track document.
>> 
>> * Both IPsec and PPTP are protocols, not applications.  IPsec is 50
>> (assuming you mean IPsec ESP, which I'm sure is what was intended) and
>>PPTP
>> uses protocol 47 (GRE).  Thus, these do not belong in the Application
>>Level
>> Gateway section.  Rather, IPsec and PPTP should be moved to the previous
>> section (NAT Conformance) which already mentions other protocols like
>>TCP
>> and ICMP.
>> 
>> * There aren't specifications describing an ALG for FTP, RTSP, RTP,
>>IPsec,
>> or PPTP VPN.
>> 
>> * What is "RTSP/RTP"?  Is this trying to say "RTSP, when it is using
>>RTP",
>> or is it trying to say "RTSP and other uses of RTP".  Text needs to be
>> clarified.
>> 
>> * IPsec Passthru is pretty common on residential NATs.  However, in a
>>CGN,
>> IPsec Passthru is difficult when multiple users connect to the same VPN
>> concentrator.  When that concentrator re-keys a session, the incoming
>>IPsec
>> SPI changes and there is no simple way to determine which user should
>> receive that packet.  There are several workarounds to this problem,
>> including just ignoring it.
>> 
>> -d
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>Softwires@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status