Re: [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's

[owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]

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:
<EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73445@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:41:04 -0700
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>,
        "v4tov6transition@ietf.org" <v4tov6transition@ietf.org>,
        "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <37ABA14C-4FD9-465C-B240-D449229830EF@cisco.com>
References:
<EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73180@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com>
<C5280025-B399-40AE-A556-2850780818D4@cisco.com>
<EC91E98C3BC6A34B917F828067B9335C1535E73445@PRVPEXVS07.corp.twcable.com>
To: "Mosley, Leonard" <len.mosley@twcable.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>


On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Mosley, Leonard wrote:

> Ahh, my apologies Fred for referring to the stateless-portion of the =
v6v4-xlate-23 draft as "NAT-PT". I see in conversation there is a strict =
distinction between the two.
>=20
> Tks,
>=20
> Len... =20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:59 AM
> To: Mosley, Leonard
> Cc: behave@ietf.org; v4tov6transition@ietf.org; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Any Experience with Using Behave's =
Stateless NAT-PT for IMS-SIP VoIP Application...
>=20
>=20
> On Sep 22, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Mosley, Leonard wrote:
>=20
>> 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's NAT-PT algorithms?
>=20
> To my knowledge, behave isn't supporting NAT-PT...

OK, if you're talking about =
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate and =
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful, I =
know Cisco has two implementations and =
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience talks =
about Jari's experience with Ericsson's. I don't know of others, but I =
would expect that there are several others.

>> 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 "legacy" SIPv4 clients and "newer" SIPv6 (dual-stack =
and/or v6-only) clients.=20
>=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.
>=20
>> 3)      I'm 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.

draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate is only at the network layer; ALGs are =
required for some protocols, like SIP and FTP, but I would expect that =
RTP (voice traffic) is a matter of exchanging IPv4<->IPv6 headers. =
That's primarily a matter of read/write times...=