IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-464xlat-opt-cdn-caches **Call for Adoption**

Lencse Gábor <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Thu, 09 January 2020 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
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 31712120019 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 07:14:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id if883fh11MQY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 07:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6984D1200FE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 07:14:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.135] (host-79-121-42-199.kabelnet.hu [79.121.42.199]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 009FE1IZ001359 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 16:14:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host host-79-121-42-199.kabelnet.hu [79.121.42.199] claimed to be [192.168.1.135]
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <FFB9FE6E-D2D2-46A2-8F2A-DB4E5534FE3E@consulintel.es> <2020010616354842655859@chinatelecom.cn> <3d68d660-0b61-cfe3-43e7-14563c47413d@gmail.com> <2020010722094585159928@chinatelecom.cn> <4A39BB6A-6711-4B31-8122-3698FDD4AAAB@consulintel.es> <740e446e-a7f1-1b35-764d-98b26644fa01@si6networks.com> <CAD6AjGSAuukvhWqtgV99aGYENeV+5LD3GyryYyugNHFct6RZww@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031406805@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Lencse Gábor <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <b25a57af-5ac6-bb19-1f00-c1ab91d0ff69@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 16:13:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031406805@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E8E684E03A392420171A6CB8"
Content-Language: hu
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=79.121.42.199; helo=[192.168.1.135]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/VHo0lCuxOEtjuoMvi2IsLnnwEN0>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-464xlat-opt-cdn-caches **Call for Adoption**
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:14:18 -0000


1/9/2020 3:54 PM keltezéssel, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com írta:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Agree with Cameron.
>
> REQ#4 and REQ#5 from RFC6888 should be followed. More details about 
> these limits can also be found in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8512#section-2.9.
>
> I disagree with Jordi when he says that NAT64 is specific compared to 
> any other CGN flavor with regards to shared addresses usage.
>

Our draft 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-04 
states that 464XLAT, DS-Lite and NAT444 are all more efficient in IPv4 
address sharing than MAP-T/E or Lw4o6:

    Stateful technologies, 464XLAT and DS-Lite (and also NAT444) can
    therefore be much more efficient in terms of port allocation and thus
    public IP address saving.  The price is the stateful operation in the
    service provider network, which allegedly does not scale up well.  It
    should be noticed that in many cases, all those factors may depend on
    how it is actually implemented.


Gábor



> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
> *De :*v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Ca By
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 9 janvier 2020 15:22
> *À :* Fernando Gont
> *Cc :* v6ops; JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> *Objet :* Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-464xlat-opt-cdn-caches **Call 
> for Adoption**
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 5:09 AM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com 
> <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 8/1/20 11:11, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>     > Hi Chongfeng,
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > In 464XLAT, the way you allocate ports to customers in the NAT64 is
>     > typically much more efficient than in pre-allocation as done
>     commonly in
>     > CGN or even MAP.
>
>     How do you mitigate the potential of DoS if you don't pre-allocate a
>     range or number of ports to each customer?
>
> Same way you do it in NAT44, you set an upper bounds on number of 
> sessions a user can dynamically create.
>
>
>     Thanks,
>     -- 
>     Fernando Gont
>     SI6 Networks
>     e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>
>     PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email