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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 22 September 2010 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 2349B28C124; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.291
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 06ppWCw05AAh; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D973B28C0DF; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFbFmUyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACiLHGoG5wkhUEEhE6FaoJ+
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,408,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="364332638"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Sep 2010 15:59:25 +0000
Received: from Freds-Computer.local (sjc-vpn3-924.cisco.com [10.21.67.156]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8MFxGO8014349; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:59:18 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Freds-Computer.local (PGP Universal service); Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:59:25 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Freds-Computer.local on Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:59:25 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73180@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:59:09 -0700
Message-Id: <C5280025-B399-40AE-A556-2850780818D4@cisco.com>
References: <EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73180@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com>
To: "Mosley, Leonard" <len.mosley@twcable.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 15:59:03 -0000

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