Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using

[Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>]

Behave's StatelessNAT-PT for IMS-SIP VoIP Application...
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Hui Deng <denghui@chinamobile.com>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, behave@ietf.org,
  "Mosley, Leonard" <len.mosley@twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=+Fx4c6UvcBi3GO2U2Cg9y7EkkTcmyO2q_YQ6t@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

/* this thread should move to v6ops@ietf.org rather than the old
v6ops@ops.ietf.org. */

Cameron, NAT64 also requires ALGs. Behave is working on FTP ALG now. I
think
IMS-ALG is also needed but you said B2BUA can be used. In fact 3GPP
standardized
IMS-ALG already but it was for NATPT.

--b



----- Original Message ----
> From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
> To: Hui Deng <denghui@chinamobile.com>
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; behave@ietf.org; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; "Mosley, 
>Leonard" <len.mosley@twcable.com>
> Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 11:23:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's 
>StatelessNAT-PT for IMS-SIP VoIP Application...
> 
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Hui Deng <denghui@chinamobile.com>  wrote:
> > I guess that NATPT and B2BUA are different story?
> 
> Right,  B2BUA is a proxy that terminates and re-initiates the call leg.
>  B2BUA are  very specific to SIP and therefore can be very robust in
> their handling of  SIP traffic.
> 
> As where any form of NAT is fundamentally just a "network  layer"
> function with some ALG to support.  And, ALGs are notoriously  poorly
> implemented and seldom standardized.
> 
> > What about ur opinion  about performance of deprecated NAT-PT regarding to
> >  SIP-SDP-RTP?
> >
> 
> I do not recommend anyone to have a going forward  network strategy
> based on a deprecated protocol, if it can be  avoided.
> 
> VoIP is generally considered very important traffic (billable  minutes,
> emergency services, branded services) while Internet is considered  not
> very important (best effort,  ...).  That said, i believe most  network
> operators feel more comfortable keeping the protocol  translation
> infrastructure for VoIP / IMS separate (use a B2BUA or  P-CSCF
> functions) from the general use protocol translation (NAT64).   The
> basic logic is that the NAT64, like NAT44 today, will have a lot  of
> entropy from the various different types of protocols and
> interactions,  as where the B2BUA will be much more focused functions
> with stricter rules  and less entropy that can trigger "unforeseen
> feature interactions", aka  bugs.
> 
> Also, given my limited scope, i have not seen a strong use case,  IMHO,
> for stateless translation since it requires 1 to 1 mapping of IPv4  to
> IPv6, and thus does not solve the address exhaustion issue ....  which
> is why folks are doing IPv6 in the first place.
> 
> Generally about  NAT64 performance, we expect it to be approximately
> consistent with NAT44 CGN  performance, slightly less on some
> platforms.  ALGs generally decrease  performance since they require
> more complex logic deeper in the  packet.
> 
> Cameron
> _______________________________________________
> Behave  mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>