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

"Mosley, Leonard" <len.mosley@twcable.com> Wed, 22 September 2010 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <len.mosley@twcable.com>
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 DB9FC3A695C; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
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 7Llht5PEKw8G; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25753A692E; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,408,1280721600"; d="scan'208";a="132399101"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 22 Sep 2010 12:08:59 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.35]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:08:59 -0400
From: "Mosley, Leonard" <len.mosley@twcable.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:08:58 -0400
Thread-Topic: [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's Stateless NAT-PT for IMS-SIP VoIP Application...
Thread-Index: ActabySVpmF5vdfSS3mXpUsf8DLaSQAALbSA
Message-ID: <EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73445@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com>
References: <EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73180@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com> <C5280025-B399-40AE-A556-2850780818D4@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C5280025-B399-40AE-A556-2850780818D4@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, "v4tov6transition@ietf.org" <v4tov6transition@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's Stateless NAT-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 16:08:36 -0000

Ahh, my apologies Fred for referring to the stateless-portion of the v6v4-xlate-23 draft as "NAT-PT". I see in conversation there is a strict distinction between the two.

Tks,

Len...  

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:59 AM
To: Mosley, Leonard
Cc: behave@ietf.org; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's Stateless NAT-PT for IMS-SIP VoIP Application...


On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Mosley, Leonard wrote:

> Greetings Fred et al, I had a couple of inquiries concerning use of the Behave WG NAT-PT algorithms:
>  
> 1)      I was wondering what vendors currently are implementing the Behave WG's NAT-PT algorithms?

To my knowledge, behave isn't supporting NAT-PT...

> 2)      Has anyone had any experience testing or implementing the stateless algorithm for use cases involving IMS SIPv4 VoIP clients calling SIPv6 clients and vice versa.  Such use cases assume an architecture where there is a co-existence period in the network consisting of both "legacy" SIPv4 clients and "newer" SIPv6 (dual-stack and/or v6-only) clients. 

Xing Li can comment on whether SIP/IVI is in use in his network. I would expect that the biggest issue in SIP deployment is the use of native addressing in SDP, which is probably best handled by some form of gateway. This is of course true of any protocol that carries IP addresses in the application and expects them to be meaningful to a peer; SIP across an IPv4/IPv4 NAT similarly requires some form of proxy that can direct indicated traffic correctly.

> 3)      I'm curious about RTP performance under moderate to heavy call loads as well as NAT-PT interaction with IMS-ALG.  If anyone can share at a high-level that would be great.

NAT-PT hasn't been all that wonderful. That's why it was deprecated...

> Tks,
>  
> Len Mosley
> Time Warner Cable
> 
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition