IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's StatelessNAT-PT for IMS-SIP VoIP Application...

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Wed, 22 September 2010 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: v4tov6transition@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v4tov6transition@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1CE3A69A8; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 dbL3sE9C15PU; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [91.121.26.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C01E3A685B; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8MJrt2W069062; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:53:55 GMT (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201009221953.o8MJrt2W069062@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:23:09 PDT. <AANLkTi=+Fx4c6UvcBi3GO2U2Cg9y7EkkTcmyO2q_YQ6t@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:53:55 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, "Mosley, Leonard" <len.mosley@twcable.com>, behave@ietf.org, v4tov6transition@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's StatelessNAT-PT for IMS-SIP VoIP Application...
X-BeenThere: v4tov6transition@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <v4tov6transition.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition>, <mailto:v4tov6transition-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v4tov6transition>
List-Post: <mailto:v4tov6transition@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v4tov6transition-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition>, <mailto:v4tov6transition-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:53:34 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   Generally about NAT64 performance, we expect it to be approximately
   consistent with NAT44 CGN performance, slightly less on some
   platforms.  ALGs generally decrease performance since they require
   more complex logic deeper in the packet.
   
=> as a writer of both (NAT-PT and CGN) packet processing in protocol
translation is clearly more complex and there are things like checksums
or (brrrr) fragment handling which are more expensive.
Now the time is spent into packet to NAT entry structure lookup for,
(best algorithms are in O(log(number_of_entries))) so as soon as the
NATxx is heavily loaded this will be the same.
BTW I fully agree about ALGs (and the worst case is SIP/SDP/etc).

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email