Fwd: BOUNCE v6ops@ops.ietf.org: Approval required:

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>]

milter-greylist-4.2.2 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 23 Sep
2010 01:16:01 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Approve: fa1nth0pe
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's
Stateless NAT-PT for IMS-SIP VoIP Application...
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To:
<EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73180@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:59:09 -0700
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>,
        "v4tov6transition@ietf.org" <v4tov6transition@ietf.org>,
        "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <C5280025-B399-40AE-A556-2850780818D4@cisco.com>
References:
<EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73180@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com>
To: "Mosley, Leonard" <len.mosley@twcable.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Mosley, Leonard wrote:

> Greetings Fred et al, I had a couple of inquiries concerning use of =
the Behave WG NAT-PT algorithms:
> =20
> 1)      I was wondering what vendors currently are implementing the =
Behave WG=92s NAT-PT algorithms?

To my knowledge, behave isn't supporting NAT-PT...

> 2)      Has anyone had any experience testing or implementing the =
stateless algorithm for use cases involving IMS SIPv4 VoIP clients =
calling SIPv6 clients and vice versa.  Such use cases assume an =
architecture where there is a co-existence period in the network =
consisting of both =93legacy=94 SIPv4 clients and =93newer=94 SIPv6 =
(dual-stack and/or v6-only) clients.=20

Xing Li can comment on whether SIP/IVI is in use in his network. I would =
expect that the biggest issue in SIP deployment is the use of native =
addressing in SDP, which is probably best handled by some form of =
gateway. This is of course true of any protocol that carries IP =
addresses in the application and expects them to be meaningful to a =
peer; SIP across an IPv4/IPv4 NAT similarly requires some form of proxy =
that can direct indicated traffic correctly.

> 3)      I=92m curious about RTP performance under moderate to heavy =
call loads as well as NAT-PT interaction with IMS-ALG.  If anyone can =
share at a high-level that would be great.

NAT-PT hasn't been all that wonderful. That's why it was deprecated...

> Tks,
> =20
> Len Mosley
> Time Warner Cable
>=20
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable =
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject =
to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended =
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. =
If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby =
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken =
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is =
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this =
E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently =
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition