From owner-nat@portmasters.com Sun Dec 10 02:33:15 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@[12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA26921 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:33:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBA7JLH09702 for nat-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 01:19:21 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f To: nat@livingston.com Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:46:59 +0530 From: "revati mariappan" Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sent-Mail: on X-Mailer: MailCity Service Subject: (NAT) NAT frag X-Sender-Ip: 202.144.64.4 Organization: Lycos Communications (http://comm.lycos.com:80) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Language: en Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "revati mariappan" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hi, is there any way to support fragmentation with NAPT manju Get FREE Email/Voicemail with 15MB at Lycos Communications at http://comm.lycos.com - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Mon Dec 11 20:19:13 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA21219 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:19:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBC1EGs04894 for nat-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:14:16 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <20001212013234.18213.qmail@web1405.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:32:34 -0800 (PST) From: Pyda Srisuresh Subject: Re: (NAT) NAT frag To: revati mariappan , nat@livingston.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Pyda Srisuresh --- revati mariappan wrote: > hi, > > is there any way to support fragmentation with NAPT > > manju Here is what the Traditional-NAT draft says about fragmentation with NAPT. 6.3. Translation of outbound TCP/UDP fragmented packets in NAPT setup Translation of outbound TCP/UDP fragments (i.e., those originating from private hosts) in NAPT setup are doomed to fail. The reason is as follows. Only the first fragment contains the TCP/UDP header that would be necessary to associate the packet to a session for translation purposes. Subsequent fragments do not contain TCP/UDP port information, but simply carry the same fragmentation identifier specified in the first fragment. Say, two private hosts originated fragmented TCP/UDP packets to the same destination host. And, they happened to use the same fragmentation identifier. When the target host receives the two unrelated datagrams, carrying same fragmentation id, and from the same assigned host address, it is unable to determine which of the two sessions the datagrams belong to. Consequently, both sessions will be corrupted. cheers, suresh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Tue Dec 12 00:13:09 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id AAA09563 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:13:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBC5AAa09163 for nat-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:10:10 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <3A35B1F4.40AFA372@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:34:52 +0530 From: Rohit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nat@portmasters.com CC: raz@lucent.com Subject: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Rohit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, One of our customer is asking us for the support of SNMP application layer gateway on CISCO router. RFC2962 covers most of the aspect of the SNMP ALG. As we don't want to use router resources for SNMP ALG then according to RFC2962 it can be a separate entity, that may reside on a separate node. But we are planning for an alternate solution where we will define an NAT-MIB which will define the NAT Translation Table. The Management station will query the NAT-MIB and perform the address translation at the management station itself. We believe that it should solve the payload translation problem (which ALG would have done otherwise). It would be nice if someone from this alias could comment on the same. Thanks Rohit - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Tue Dec 12 02:40:45 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA03190 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBC7Y6S11866 for nat-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:34:06 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <91CDB24C5FCDD31198A2009027E79021011BD72B@exchange.2wire.com> From: Randy Turner To: "'Rohit '" , "'nat@portmasters.com '" Cc: "'raz@lucent.com '" Subject: RE: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:41:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Randy Turner Obviously, this cannot be a generic SNMP management station, because management stations just don't do this kind of thing. I haven't been following the MIB standardization process very closely, but I'm assuming that someone is working on a "standard" NAT MIB? I would think you would need the ALG support anyway. It would cover far more cases than a management station approach. Randy -----Original Message----- From: Rohit To: nat@portmasters.com Cc: raz@lucent.com Sent: 12/11/00 9:04 PM Subject: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway Hi, One of our customer is asking us for the support of SNMP application layer gateway on CISCO router. RFC2962 covers most of the aspect of the SNMP ALG. As we don't want to use router resources for SNMP ALG then according to RFC2962 it can be a separate entity, that may reside on a separate node. But we are planning for an alternate solution where we will define an NAT-MIB which will define the NAT Translation Table. The Management station will query the NAT-MIB and perform the address translation at the management station itself. We believe that it should solve the payload translation problem (which ALG would have done otherwise). It would be nice if someone from this alias could comment on the same. Thanks Rohit - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Tue Dec 12 03:15:34 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA13985 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:15:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBC8DeW12515 for nat-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:13:40 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <3A35DCEF.ED1BE815@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:38:15 +0530 From: Rohit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Turner CC: "'nat@portmasters.com '" , "'raz@lucent.com '" Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway References: <91CDB24C5FCDD31198A2009027E79021011BD72B@exchange.2wire.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Rohit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Randy, I do agree that on the SNMP Management station side we need to have an extra layer performing the NAT specific stuff. If anyone is already working on the "standard" NAT MIB , that will be great for us otherwise we will have to define the MIB. If we can provide this type of extra support on the management station side why do we need ALG support. Anyway we do support proxy according to RFC2573. Thanks Rohit Randy Turner wrote: > > > Obviously, this cannot be a generic SNMP management station, because > management stations just don't do this kind of thing. I haven't been > following the MIB standardization process very closely, but I'm assuming > that someone is working on a "standard" NAT MIB? I would think you would > need the ALG support anyway. It would cover far more cases than a management > station approach. > > Randy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rohit > To: nat@portmasters.com > Cc: raz@lucent.com > Sent: 12/11/00 9:04 PM > Subject: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway > > Hi, > > One of our customer is asking us for the support of > SNMP application layer gateway on CISCO router. > > RFC2962 covers most of the aspect of the SNMP ALG. > > As we don't want to use router resources for SNMP ALG > then according to RFC2962 it can be a separate entity, that may > reside on a separate node. > > But we are planning for an alternate solution where we will > define an NAT-MIB which will define the NAT Translation Table. > The Management station will query the NAT-MIB and perform the > address translation at the management station itself. > > We believe that it should solve the payload translation problem > (which ALG would have done otherwise). It would be nice if > someone from this alias could comment on the same. > > Thanks > Rohit > - > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with > 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. > - > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with > 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Tue Dec 12 09:44:00 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA03109 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBCEVZJ16656 for nat-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:31:35 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-Id: <4.1.20001212092541.00cd94f0@smtp.cmh.ascend.com> X-Sender: mhandler@smtp.cmh.ascend.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:27:48 -0500 To: Pyda Srisuresh From: Mike Handler Subject: Re: (NAT) NAT frag Cc: revati mariappan , nat@livingston.com In-Reply-To: <20001212013234.18213.qmail@web1405.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Mike Handler A NAT implementer can implement around it, though, by defragmenting before NATting, or by translating fragmentation identifiers as well. MH At 08:32 PM 12/11/2000 , Pyda Srisuresh wrote: > >--- revati mariappan wrote: >> hi, >> >> is there any way to support fragmentation with NAPT >> >> manju > >Here is what the Traditional-NAT draft says about fragmentation >with NAPT. > >6.3. Translation of outbound TCP/UDP fragmented packets in NAPT setup > > Translation of outbound TCP/UDP fragments (i.e., those originating > from private hosts) in NAPT setup are doomed to fail. The reason is > as follows. Only the first fragment contains the TCP/UDP header that > would be necessary to associate the packet to a session for > translation purposes. Subsequent fragments do not contain TCP/UDP > port information, but simply carry the same fragmentation identifier > specified in the first fragment. Say, two private hosts originated > fragmented TCP/UDP packets to the same destination host. And, they > happened to use the same fragmentation identifier. When the > target host receives the two unrelated datagrams, carrying same > fragmentation id, and from the same assigned host address, it > is unable to determine which of the two sessions the datagrams > belong to. Consequently, both sessions will be corrupted. > > > >cheers, >suresh > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. >http://shopping.yahoo.com/ >- >To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with >'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Tue Dec 12 16:57:25 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA18898 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBCLsIE24893 for nat-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:54:18 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:49 +0100 Message-Id: <200012122151.WAA11789@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: rrohit@cisco.com CC: rturner@2wire.com, nat@portmasters.com, raz@lucent.com In-reply-to: <3A35DCEF.ED1BE815@cisco.com> (message from Rohit on Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:38:15 +0530) Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway References: <91CDB24C5FCDD31198A2009027E79021011BD72B@exchange.2wire.com> <3A35DCEF.ED1BE815@cisco.com> Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>>> Rohit writes: Rohit> I do agree that on the SNMP Management station side we need Rohit> to have an extra layer performing the NAT specific stuff. You are basically putting the NAT into the management station if I understand correctly. Rohit> If anyone is already working on the "standard" NAT MIB , that Rohit> will be great for us otherwise we will have to define the MIB. Rohit> If we can provide this type of extra support on the management Rohit> station side why do we need ALG support. Anyway we do support Rohit> proxy according to RFC2573. So why do you not just use proxies? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Tue Dec 12 17:30:58 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA26042 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 17:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBCMSS625573 for nat-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:28:28 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <20001212224807.12267.qmail@web1405.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:48:07 -0800 (PST) From: Pyda Srisuresh Subject: RE: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway To: Randy Turner , "'Rohit '" , "'nat@portmasters.com '" Cc: "'raz@lucent.com '" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Pyda Srisuresh Randy and Rohit, Please see my comments below. cheers, suresh --- Randy Turner wrote: > > Obviously, this cannot be a generic SNMP management station, because > management stations just don't do this kind of thing. I haven't been > following the MIB standardization process very closely, but I'm assuming > that someone is working on a "standard" NAT MIB? I would think you would > need the ALG support anyway. It would cover far more cases than a management > station approach. No one is working on a "standard NAT MIB", as far as I know. I.e., we dont have a draft yet. In the event of a NAT MIB becoming available, I dont see why that has any dependency on SNMP-ALG support. As far as I can tell, NAT MIB and SNMP-ALG are orthogonal issues. > > Randy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rohit > To: nat@portmasters.com > Cc: raz@lucent.com > Sent: 12/11/00 9:04 PM > Subject: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway > > Hi, > > One of our customer is asking us for the support of > SNMP application layer gateway on CISCO router. > > RFC2962 covers most of the aspect of the SNMP ALG. > > As we don't want to use router resources for SNMP ALG > then according to RFC2962 it can be a separate entity, that may > reside on a separate node. > Thus far, I understand what you say. > But we are planning for an alternate solution where we will > define an NAT-MIB which will define the NAT Translation Table. > The Management station will query the NAT-MIB and perform the > address translation at the management station itself. > That sounds fine as well. Are the address maps static or dynamic? You may have a problem with dynamic maps. > We believe that it should solve the payload translation problem > (which ALG would have done otherwise). It would be nice if > someone from this alias could comment on the same. If the managment station is doing the translation of the payload, then the management station has the ALG funtion within it. You are suggesting that the managment station obtain the translation table from the NAT router through a MIB. SO far, I dont see any contradiction in terms with RFC 2962. > > Thanks > Rohit > cheers, suresh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Tue Dec 12 23:48:02 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA02437 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBD4jkh29845 for nat-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:45:46 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <3A36FDB6.CF6A942A@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:10:22 +0530 From: Rohit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pyda Srisuresh CC: Randy Turner , "'nat@portmasters.com '" , "'raz@lucent.com '" Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway References: <20001212224807.12267.qmail@web1405.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Rohit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Is it possible that we go ahead with writing a "standard NAT-MIB" and then present our MIB to this alias to be accepted as an draft ? Thanks Rohit Pyda Srisuresh wrote: > > Randy and Rohit, > > Please see my comments below. > > cheers, > suresh > > --- Randy Turner wrote: > > > > Obviously, this cannot be a generic SNMP management station, because > > management stations just don't do this kind of thing. I haven't been > > following the MIB standardization process very closely, but I'm assuming > > that someone is working on a "standard" NAT MIB? I would think you would > > need the ALG support anyway. It would cover far more cases than a management > > station approach. > > No one is working on a "standard NAT MIB", as far as I know. I.e., we dont > have a draft yet. In the event of a NAT MIB becoming available, I dont > see why that has any dependency on SNMP-ALG support. As far as I can tell, > NAT MIB and SNMP-ALG are orthogonal issues. > > > > > Randy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rohit > > To: nat@portmasters.com > > Cc: raz@lucent.com > > Sent: 12/11/00 9:04 PM > > Subject: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway > > > > Hi, > > > > One of our customer is asking us for the support of > > SNMP application layer gateway on CISCO router. > > > > RFC2962 covers most of the aspect of the SNMP ALG. > > > > As we don't want to use router resources for SNMP ALG > > then according to RFC2962 it can be a separate entity, that may > > reside on a separate node. > > > > Thus far, I understand what you say. > > > But we are planning for an alternate solution where we will > > define an NAT-MIB which will define the NAT Translation Table. > > The Management station will query the NAT-MIB and perform the > > address translation at the management station itself. > > > That sounds fine as well. Are the address maps static or dynamic? > You may have a problem with dynamic maps. > > > We believe that it should solve the payload translation problem > > (which ALG would have done otherwise). It would be nice if > > someone from this alias could comment on the same. > > If the managment station is doing the translation of the payload, > then the management station has the ALG funtion within it. You are > suggesting that the managment station obtain the translation table > from the NAT router through a MIB. > > SO far, I dont see any contradiction in terms with RFC 2962. > > > > > Thanks > > Rohit > > > > cheers, > suresh > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. > http://shopping.yahoo.com/ - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Wed Dec 13 00:17:44 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA02435 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBD4gdv29794 for nat-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:42:39 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <3A36FCF8.DA1B9B@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:07:12 +0530 From: Rohit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juergen Schoenwaelder CC: rturner@2wire.com, nat@portmasters.com, raz@lucent.com Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway References: <91CDB24C5FCDD31198A2009027E79021011BD72B@exchange.2wire.com> <3A35DCEF.ED1BE815@cisco.com> <200012122151.WAA11789@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Rohit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > >>>>> Rohit writes: > > Rohit> I do agree that on the SNMP Management station side we need > Rohit> to have an extra layer performing the NAT specific stuff. > > You are basically putting the NAT into the management station if I > understand correctly. Yes , we are planning to do so. > > Rohit> If anyone is already working on the "standard" NAT MIB , that > Rohit> will be great for us otherwise we will have to define the MIB. > Rohit> If we can provide this type of extra support on the management > Rohit> station side why do we need ALG support. Anyway we do support > Rohit> proxy according to RFC2573. > > So why do you not just use proxies? > Proxy Forwarder will just forward the SNMP request, it won't translate the conflicting IP addresses. Thanks Rohit > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig > Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks > Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany > Fax: +49 531 391 5936 > - > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with > 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Wed Dec 13 13:45:16 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA29516 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:45:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBDISkk05376 for nat-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:28:46 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20001213102254.01ebcc80@pop3.ipverse.com> X-Sender: matt@ipverse.com@pop3.ipverse.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:25:54 -0800 To: rrohit@cisco.com From: Matt Holdrege Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway Cc: nat@portmasters.com In-Reply-To: <3A36FDB6.CF6A942A@cisco.com> References: <20001212224807.12267.qmail@web1405.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Matt Holdrege At 08:40 PM 12/12/2000, Rohit wrote: >Hi, > > Is it possible that we go ahead with writing a "standard NAT-MIB" and > then present our MIB to this alias to be accepted as an draft ? Such an effort would be very welcome. Understand that once a draft is accepted as a working group item it will be subject to the wishes of the working group. If you haven't written an IETF MIB before, I recommend looking at some of the recent MIB RFC's to understand the style. - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Wed Dec 13 14:41:37 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA09478 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBDJKB006110 for nat-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:20:11 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:17:34 +0100 Message-Id: <200012131917.UAA13316@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: rrohit@cisco.com CC: rturner@2wire.com, nat@portmasters.com, raz@lucent.com In-reply-to: <3A36FCF8.DA1B9B@cisco.com> (message from Rohit on Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:07:12 +0530) Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway References: <91CDB24C5FCDD31198A2009027E79021011BD72B@exchange.2wire.com> <3A35DCEF.ED1BE815@cisco.com> <200012122151.WAA11789@henkell.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> <3A36FCF8.DA1B9B@cisco.com> Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder >>>>> Rohit writes: Rohit> Proxy Forwarder will just forward the SNMP request, it won't Rohit> translate the conflicting IP addresses. Yes, the management application needs to understand the situation. Note that an SNMP ALG will only be able to do some translation and thus it does not really provide a transparent view for the management application either. And an SNMP ALG has the potential to screw up SNMP protocol semantics... /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Technical University Braunschweig Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks Phone: +49 531 391 3289 Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 391 5936 - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Wed Dec 13 15:03:29 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA12048 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:03:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBDK0sZ06740 for nat-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:00:54 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <20001213202109.1826.qmail@web1405.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:21:09 -0800 (PST) From: Pyda Srisuresh Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway To: Rohit Cc: Randy Turner , "'nat@portmasters.com '" , "'raz@lucent.com '" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Pyda Srisuresh --- Rohit wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible that we go ahead with writing a "standard NAT-MIB" and > then present our MIB to this alias to be accepted as an draft ? > > Thanks > Rohit Yes. We will be glad to accept that as a work group item. Thanks. cheers, suresh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Wed Dec 13 15:34:16 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA17938 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:34:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBDKCbU06920 for nat-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:12:37 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <91CDB24C5FCDD31198A2009027E79021011BD73E@exchange.2wire.com> From: Randy Turner To: "'Pyda Srisuresh '" , "'Rohit '" Cc: Randy Turner , "''nat@portmasters.com ' '" , "''raz@lucent.com ' '" Subject: RE: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:19:35 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Randy Turner Just FYI, There are folks from Cisco that may have already come up with what would be a baseline text for such a standard NAT MIB. It's currently a proposal before the DSL Forum for automatic provisioning of broadband consumer NAT/router products. Randy -----Original Message----- From: Pyda Srisuresh To: Rohit Cc: Randy Turner; 'nat@portmasters.com '; 'raz@lucent.com ' Sent: 12/13/00 12:21 PM Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway --- Rohit wrote: > Hi, > > Is it possible that we go ahead with writing a "standard NAT-MIB" and > then present our MIB to this alias to be accepted as an draft ? > > Thanks > Rohit Yes. We will be glad to accept that as a work group item. Thanks. cheers, suresh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Thu Dec 14 02:43:55 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA16422 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBE7Hdk16562 for nat-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:17:39 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <3A386A80.AED571EF@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:36:48 +0600 From: rrohit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Holdrege CC: nat@portmasters.com Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway References: <20001212224807.12267.qmail@web1405.mail.yahoo.com> <5.0.2.1.2.20001213102254.01ebcc80@pop3.ipverse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rrohit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Matt, I have written CISCO Specific MIBS in past. I will certainly look at some of the recent MIB RFC's to understand the style. Thanks Rohit Matt Holdrege wrote: > At 08:40 PM 12/12/2000, Rohit wrote: > >Hi, > > > > Is it possible that we go ahead with writing a "standard NAT-MIB" and > > then present our MIB to this alias to be accepted as an draft ? > > Such an effort would be very welcome. Understand that once a draft is > accepted as a working group item it will be subject to the wishes of the > working group. If you haven't written an IETF MIB before, I recommend > looking at some of the recent MIB RFC's to understand the style. > > - > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with > 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. From owner-nat@portmasters.com Thu Dec 14 02:44:26 2000 Received: from linux2.portmasters.com (root@ns2.jakes.org [12.96.1.99]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA16545 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by linux2.portmasters.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id eBE7FpD16557 for nat-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 01:15:51 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: linux2.portmasters.com: majordomo set sender to owner-nat@portmasters.com using -f Message-ID: <3A386A09.FB72F2CB@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:34:50 +0600 From: rrohit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Turner CC: "'Pyda Srisuresh '" , "''nat@portmasters.com ' '" , "''raz@lucent.com ' '" Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway References: <91CDB24C5FCDD31198A2009027E79021011BD73E@exchange.2wire.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nat@portmasters.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rrohit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Randy, Thanks for your info. I guess it should be possible to get the baseline text from DSL forum for the "standard NAT MIB". Thanks Rohit Randy Turner wrote: > > Just FYI, > > There are folks from Cisco that may have already come up with what would be > a baseline text for such a standard NAT MIB. It's currently a proposal > before the DSL Forum for automatic provisioning of broadband consumer > NAT/router products. > > Randy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pyda Srisuresh > To: Rohit > Cc: Randy Turner; 'nat@portmasters.com '; 'raz@lucent.com ' > Sent: 12/13/00 12:21 PM > Subject: Re: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway > > --- Rohit wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is it possible that we go ahead with writing a "standard NAT-MIB" > and > > then present our MIB to this alias to be accepted as an draft ? > > > > Thanks > > Rohit > > Yes. We will be glad to accept that as a work group item. Thanks. > > cheers, > suresh > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. > http://shopping.yahoo.com/ > - > To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with > 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message. - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@portmasters.com' with 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.