Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-00
MAWATARI Masataka <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp> Tue, 06 November 2012 06:15 UTC
Return-Path: <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B455021F879E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:15:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EzKCg-CgXnoh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx20.jpix.ad.jp (mx20.jpix.ad.jp [210.171.225.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2217B21F879B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.231] (64es-v4pool4.jpix.ad.jp [202.90.12.4]) by mx20.jpix.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A44CFC040; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:15:29 +0900 (JST)
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:15:29 +0900
From: MAWATARI Masataka <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp>
To: phdgang@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMEQtTSqGZeD0HSHFOSVty13=i2twB3QFypKRtnoaVJ_bdw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86E4957C-33CA-493A-991E-9A937FC28BE0@magma.ca> <CAM+vMEQtTSqGZeD0HSHFOSVty13=i2twB3QFypKRtnoaVJ_bdw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <20121106151528.1783.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.61.01 [ja]
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience@tools.ietf.org, philip_matthews@magma.ca
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-00
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 06:15:33 -0000
Dear authors, * On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 06:13:15 +0800 * GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Philip, > > 2012/11/1, Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>: > > Hi authors: > > > > I read your draft with interest. I need to re-read it more carefully, but > > here are some preliminary comments: > > > > 1) The title of the draft is "NAT64 Operational Experiences", but I feel the > > draft reads much more like "NAT64 Deployment Considerations". I didn't see > > any place where the draft says "This is what we did and it worked well (or > > it didn't work well)". That is, it is not really relating the specific > > experience of an operator in deploying NAT64 so much as describing things > > that an operator should take into account when planning their own NAT64 > > deployment. > > Thanks for the comments. Regarding the word of "Experiences", I > searched the definition from a dictionary. It usually refers to > "knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, > encountered, or undergone". It's true it involves a particular > instance of encountering or undergoing something. Whereas, we didn't > describe such particular behavior (what we did), since the texts seems > to be time-sensitive. It tends to be ephemeral as a documented output > in RFC. So it may be more effective/worthwhile to discuss generalized > knowledge/problems being addressed in the document. > > We are still opening on this point. I guess that is only the matter of > structuring texts > > > > 2) Section 3.1 has the sentence: > > It is advantageous from the vantage-point of > > troubleshooting and traffic engineering to carry the IPv6 traffic > > natively for as long as possible within an access network and > > translates only at or near the network egress. > > I think it would be interesting and helpful to say more about why you feel > > this is true. Can you give some specific examples? > > In our practices, NAT64 is positioned on the location of border > routers. As you mentioned, the reason for that is for cost reasons. > Other gains are simplification of traceability and network > provisioning in one network domain. AFAIK, the cases are also shared > by other operators in the author list. > > > > Though today I suspect > > most operators will try to centralize their NAT64 boxes for cost reasons, I > > can see in the future an operator that is forced to go pure IPv6 and is > > planning a large rollout, and will be worried that centralizing NAT64 will > > not scale well and will thus consider pushing NAT64 to closer to the > > customer. > > The concerns were actually discussed when we do the network planning. > One point is native IPv6 communications would bypass the NAT64. Those > traffic offload on NAT64 should be encouraged if an operator is forced > to go pure IPv6. In some sense, the concerns of scalability on NAT64 > may be alleviated. > > > > 3) Section 3.2 on HA Considerations has the sentence: > > Given that short > > lived sessions account for most of the bindings, hot-standby does not > > offer much benefit for those sessions. > > Just curious if you have evidence or a reference that backs up this claim? > > Statistic of service traffic in a mobile network could be the evidence > depending on the colleted data. Most traffic (almost 94% of amount of > traffic) is accounted by Http, WAP browsing, which are short lived > sessions. > > > This is certainly frequently stated for NAT44, but I haven't seen hard facts > > in the case of NAT64. I am especially wondering if the fact that some > > traffic (like DNS traffic and native IPV6 traffic) doesn't go through the > > NAT64 would change the situation from the NAT44 case. > > I guess the situation on NAT64 is similar with NAT44, since all IPv4 > connections to the IPv4 Internet from IPv6-only clients must traverse > the NAT64. > > > 4) The draft is currently organized so that section 3 discusses the > > NAT64-CGN case, and section 4 discusses the same topics in the NAT64-CPE > > case. I suggest you consider organizing the draft differently, so that you > > have a series of sections discussing a topic (e.g Load Balancing or MTU), > > and within the section you first discuss the NAT64-CGN case and then the > > NAT64-CPE case. I suggest that this would allow you to discuss each topic > > more fully, and would emphasis the similarities or differences between the > > CGN and CPE cases. Just a suggestion. > > Thanks for the suggestions. Some texts in same topics for NAT64-CGN > and -CE could be structured. Yet, there are also different topics > regarding to -CGN and -CE, which is hardly organized in such way. > > BTW, the term "CE" is likely confused with CPE. What we indicated is > actually a load-balancer in front of enterprise network, e.g. data > center. If the group agree, we intend to rename it as "Front End" to > precisely indicate the meaning. I understood that NAT64-CE shows server-side applicability of NAT64. If my understanding is correct, "Server Farm Edge" sounds better to me, IMHO. Kind Regards, Masataka MAWATARI > Best Regards > > > Gang
- [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experi… Philip Matthews
- Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-ex… MAWATARI Masataka
- Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-ex… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-ex… Philip Matthews
- Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-ex… GangChen