IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 6D044120059 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:54:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 nyBmksqD57uw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:54:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 483C3120019 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:54:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 47tpzj093sz8tGP; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:54:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.104]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 47tpzh5ybKz1xpF; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:54:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM5F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:54:24 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
CC: v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-464xlat-opt-cdn-caches **Call for Adoption**
Thread-Index: AQHVxvgplyBpZJMP6Ua61fyaAD073afiaaiw
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 14:54:24 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031406805@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSAuukvhWqtgV99aGYENeV+5LD3GyryYyugNHFct6RZww@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031406805OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fiYVXqd2dVkFDe-lqi-DrQwdtaU>
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 14:54:28 -0000

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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email