NAT State Synchronization using SCSP draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-01

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses draft-csf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-00 Q. Sun, Y. Cui, I. Farrer, Y. Lee, Q. Sun, M. Boucadair IETF 89,
Advertisements

CMPE 150- Introduction to Computer Networks 1 CMPE 150 Fall 2005 Lecture 25 Introduction to Computer Networks.
Connecting LANs: Section Figure 15.1 Five categories of connecting devices.
Entire Routes Reflecting capability draft-zhang-idr-bgp-entire-routes-reflect-00.txt Zhang Renhai :
Draft-ospf-non-compatible Mike Dubrovsky. The draft addresses the following problem: Problem: How to introduce non-backward compatible functionality into.
LISP MIB draft-lisp-mib-05 Vancouver IETF - LISP WG Gregg Schudel, Amit Jain, Victor Moreno July 2012.
Network Layer Packet Forwarding IS250 Spring 2010
Nov 11, 2004CS573: Network Protocols and Standards1 IP Routing: OSPF Network Protocols and Standards Autumn
OSPF Operator Defined TLVs for Agile Service Deployment (previous name self-defined TLVs) draft-chunduri-ospf-operator-defined-tlvs-00 (previously: draft-chunduri-ospf-self-defined-sub-tlvs-03)
Format for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Common Log Format (CLF) draft-ietf-sipclf-format-01 (G. Salgueiro, V. Gurbani, and A. B. Roach) Presenter:
IETF 80 th 1 Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal the Origin IP Address in Shared Address Deployments draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-01.
WG RAQMON Internet-Drafts RMON MIB WG Meeting Washington, Nov. 11, 2004.
Dean Cheng Jouni Korhonen Mehamed Boucadair
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment- route-00.txt Ali Sajassi, Samer.
CSE4213 Computer Networks II
IETF – ECRIT Emergency Context Resolution using Internet Technologies ESW 5 – Vienna October 2008 Marc Linsner.
Dean Cheng Jouni Korhonen Mehamed Boucadair
AAA and Mobile IPv6 Franck Le AAA WG - IETF55. Why Diameter support for Mobile IPv6? Mobile IPv6 is a routing protocol and does not deal with issues related.
Dean Cheng Xiaohu Xu Joel Halpern Mohamed Boucadair
IPv6 Site-Local Discussion Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman IETF 56 San Francisco March 2003.
IETF 66 L1VPN Basic Mode Draft draft-ietf-l1vpn-basic-mode-00.txt Don Fedyk (Editor) Yakov Rekhter (Editor)
Draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02 1 FEC framework Configuration Signaling draft-ietf-fecframe-config-signaling-02.txt IETF 76 Rajiv Asati.
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 TCP/IP Protocols and Services Technical Reference Slide: 1 Lesson 18 Windows Internet Name Service (WINS)
Dean Cheng 81 st IETF Quebec City RADIUS Extensions for CGN Configurations draft-cheng-behave-cgn-cfg-radius-ext
Cisco Confidential © 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1 draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-service-distribution-00.txt Padma Pillay-Esnault.
OSPFv3 Auto-Config IETF 83, Paris Jari Arkko, Ericsson Acee Lindem, Ericsson.
NEMO Basic Support update IETF 61. Status IANA assignments done Very close to AUTH48 call Some issues raised recently We need to figure out if we want.
Extensions to PCEP for Hierarchical Path Computation Elements PCE draft-zhang-pcep-hierarchy-extensions-00 Fatai Zhang Quintin Zhao.
Address Resolution Protocol Yasir Jan 20 th March 2008 Future Internet.
Deploying Dual-Stack Lite in IPv6 Network draft-boucadair-dslite-interco-v4v6-04 Mohamed Boucadair
1 Introduction to ISIS AfNOG 2011 SI-E Workshop. 2 IS-IS Standards History  ISO specifies OSI IS-IS routing protocol for CLNS traffic A Link State.
Gateway redundancy protocols
IP: Addressing, ARP, Routing
Advertising Generic Information in IS-IS
Discussion on DHCPv6 Routing Configuration
Update on Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
IP - The Internet Protocol
IP-NNI Joint Task Force Status Update
Richard Ogier Presented by Tom Henderson July 28, 2011
PANA Issues and Resolutions
Synchronisation of Network Parameters draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-00
An IPv6 Flow Label Specification Proposal
OSPF (Open Shortest Path First)
IP Adressing in IPv4 By Kenneth Lundby.
PCEP Extensions For Transporting Traffic Engineering (TE) Data
Les Ginsberg Stefano Previdi Peter Psenak Martin Pilka
RADEXT WG RADIUS Attribute Guidelines draft-weber-radius-attr-guidelines-01.txt Greg Weber November 8th, 2005 v1 IETF-64, Vancouver.
OSPF Extensions for ASON Routing draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-03.txt IETF67 - Prague - Mar’07 Dimitri.
IP - The Internet Protocol
IP-NNI Joint Task Force Status Update
Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) WG DMM Work Item: Forwarding Path & Signaling Management (FPSM) draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp-01.txt IETF93, Prague.
What’s “Inside” a Router?
Chapter 5: Dynamic Routing
IP - The Internet Protocol
OSPF and BGP State Migration for Resource-portable IP router
A Unified Approach to IP Segment Routing
Chapter 9: Multiarea OSPF
IP - The Internet Protocol
Chapter 11: Network Address Translation for IPv4
Chapter 9: Multiarea OSPF
Mobile IP Regional Registration
Ch 17 - Binding Protocol Addresses
IP - The Internet Protocol
Extended BFD draft-mirmin-bfd-extended
draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00
IETF-104 (Prague) DHC WG Next steps
MIF DHCPv6 Route Option Update
M. Boucadair, J. Touch, P. Levis and R. Penno
draft-ietf-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-04
Reliable PIM Registers draft-anish-reliable-pim-register
Presentation transcript:

NAT State Synchronization using SCSP draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-01 Dean Cheng (chengd@huawei.com) Xiaohu Xu (xuxh@huawei.com) Joel Halpern (Joel.Halpern@ericsson.com) Mohamed Boucadair (mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com) IETF77, Anaheim

Changes made in 01 Added a paragraph in Section 1.2 to emphasize the use of the link state based algorithm Added an editor’s note in Section 2.1 regarding the inclusion/exclusion of NAT44 Minor editorial changes

SCSP – A Protocol for Data Cache Synchronization Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP - RFC2334) solves a general server synchronization/cache-replication problem for distributed databases. SCSP uses link-state based algorithm to reliably flood database entries among participating servers. SCSP defines application-independent protocol mechanisms and requires applications to define their own formats for cache records, called Cache State Advertisement (CSA). This document specifies a method of using SCSP to achieve NAT state synchronization among NAT devices in a redundancy group including associated CSA format.

Requirements for NAT Devices Deployed with Redundancy To achieve hot-standby, data synchronization is a MUST. Reliability and robustness are very much desired during data synchronization process. Stateful contents in data cache maintained by the primary NAT MUST be synchronized on all participating NAT devices in a redundancy group. When a primary NAT device in a redundancy group fails, all existing NAT sessions must survive without any perceived impact on the traffic (e.g., severe delay, loss, etc.)

Use SCSP to Sync NAT Database Multiple NAT devices deployed on the border between two IP domains form a redundancy group which, possibly along with other redundancy groups, belong to a SCSP Server Group (SG), identified by SGID. Within a redundancy group, there is a primary and one or more backup devices. When the primary NAT device fails, a new primary NAT device will be elected. For each NAT type, a separate SCSP Protocol ID (PID) is assigned by IANA. Currently NAT type includes NAT44, NAT64, and NAT46. The method described is applicable to stateful NAT only.

NAT State Refreshment Mechanism Only the primary NAT device can create new cache entries. NAT database entries are aged. The primary device is responsible to re-originate and re-flood them before aging out for active entries. After a switchover, the newly elected primary NAT device MUST re-originate all cache entries that were originated by the previous primary NAT device, with NAT contents remain the same followed by a reliable flooding defined by SCSP.

Should NAT Synchronization be standardized? There are some who believe there is no need to… There have been proprietary implementations deployed. But there are others who like to see a standard based synchronization mechanism for NAT. These include some carriers too… We feel that… There will be more networks that need to deploy NAT in the next few years, where a standard based synchronization would be useful. There are examples for co-existence of standards based protocols and proprietary protocols both deployed.

Should this draft include NAT44? There are some who believe there is no need to… There have been many proprietary handling for NAT44 synchronization. But there are others (including some carriers) who like to see NAT44 synchronization also be standardized There will be more NAT44 (e.g., DS-Lite) to be deployed… We feel that… It makes sense to include NAT44 if some that will deploy it. But otherwise, we can take NAT44 out

Has SCSP been deployed? It is true that there are not many applications that are based on SCSP today There have been many proprietary handling for NAT44 synchronization. But SCSP uses exact the same link state algorithm and mechanisms as in routing protocols including OSPF, IS-IS, which have been widely deployed… …and the proposed NAT synchronization protocol uses the same algorithm and mechanism.

The Next … If the WG thinks standardizing the NAT sync mechanism is useful, let’s add this work to the WG charter.

Backup Slides

SCSP Message Mandatory Common Part 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol ID | Server Group ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unused | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender ID Len | Recvr ID Len | Number of Records | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Sender ID (Variable Length) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Receiver ID (Variable Length) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Values for the SCSP “Mandatory Common Part” Protocol ID = TBD There is a separate Protocol ID for NAT44, NAT64, and NAT46, assigned by IANA. Server Group ID = NAT device redundancy group ID Sender ID Len = 4, if IPv4 address is used =16, if IPv6 address is used. Per RFC2334, an identifier assigned to a server (in this case, a NAT device), might be the protocol address of the sending server. Recvr ID Len Per RFC2334, an identifier assigned to a server (in this case, a NAT device), might be the protocol address of the receiving server.

Values for the SCSP “CSAS Record” Cache Key Len = 4 This 4-byte opaque string is generated by the NAT device that originates the CSAS. Originator ID Len = 4, if IPv4 address is used = 16, if IPv6 address is used. Per RFC2334, an identifier assigned to a server (in this case, a NAT device) might be the protocol address of the server.

NAT Specific CSA 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol | Option Length | Unused | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Port Mapped from | Port Mapped to | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Address Mapped from (Specific to NAT type) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Address Mapped to (Specific to NAT type) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / TLV Options (Variable Length) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+