Subject: RE: NAT associations: query versus set (was Re: [midcom] Comments on requirements draft v2

From: "Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 04:21:46 +0100

Jiri,
What we are saying is that:
In cases there are several MB separating between 2 networks, and we don't
know which one will be traversed by the flows, we might want to have same
BINDs created on all the MBs. This will be required until we have MB
discovery defined.
This will bring certain issues such as the BIND allocated on one MB might
conflict with another MB (because it is already allocated to another flow),
but there is no other alternative for now ...
Cedric

-----Original Message-----
From: Jiri Kuthan [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 3:18 PM
To: Bob Penfield; Aoun, Cedric [QPD:MA01:EXCH]; Richard Swale (E-mail);
Mark Duffy
Cc: Midcom IETF (E-mail)
Subject: NAT associations: query versus set (was Re: [midcom] Comments
on requirements draft v2

I think this discussion appeared on the mailing list looong time
ago and most folks agreed that asking for NAT translation goes
better than setting it.

If we went for "setting", agents (e.g., SIP proxies) would have
to maintain the address pool. Not only does it counter midcom's
decomposition prinicple, but it also introduces lot of tricky
issues. Particularly, things will become more complex with
multiple agents.

-Jiri

><BP>
>There are at least two cases I can think of where the agent wants to tell
>the middlebox what the binding is: 1) when establishing the NAT to allow
SIP
>signalling through the middlebox (It will likely want to make the port be
>5060); and 2) for when there are redundant peering points and the agent
>wants to same binding in both NAT middleboxes. It might "learn" the binding
>from one middlebox and "tell" the other middlebox that binding.
></BP>

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom