ILA-NAT-GW, or Locator-Rewrite Function ,,,should all work I guess. Sri
On 3/20/18, 4:42 AM, "Marco Liebsch" <[email protected]> wrote: >What about naming it nicely locator re-writing? Which is what it does and >community reacts differently >on certain terms such as NAT.. > >marco > >-----Original Message----- >From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli >(sgundave) >Sent: Dienstag, 20. März 2018 12:40 >To: Tom Herbert; Lyle Bertz >Cc: dmm >Subject: Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00 > >But, in any case, NAT is not such a bad word, its just that it pushed >IPv6 deployments out by 20 years. > >Sri > >On 3/20/18, 4:37 AM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" ><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >>Tom: >> >>> ILA is not NAT! :-) >> >>As seen from the end point, I agree ILA is not NAT. But, that the >>function that is needed at two places where you do translation of the >>addresses from SIR to LOCATOR, or LOCATOR to SIR is a NAT function, and >>you have a mapping state similar to NAT state. That¹s a NAT :-) >> >> >>Sri >> >>On 3/20/18, 4:29 AM, "dmm on behalf of Tom Herbert" >><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Lyle Bertz <[email protected]> >>>wrote: >>>> We'll be quite time constrained during this session so I thought I >>>>would ask a couple of simple questions which I hope have already >>>>been addressed in previous e-mails: >>>> >>>> 1. Figures 14 & 15 are described as options and do not include an SMF. >>>> However, Figures 16 & 17 do. It is a bit confusing. Are 14 & 15 >>>>incorrect or is an option to skip the SMF? If correct, how does one >>>>do any policy in those figures? >>>> >>>> 2. ILA appears to be super NAT'g (more than 1 NAT) but it is >>>>unclear how policy works. I am not sure that in its current state >>>>the proposed ILA design addresses in Section 3. Although it is >>>>noted that not all functions are supported at a specific UPF it is >>>>unclear that policy, lawful intercept, etc.. is supported at all. >>>>Will this be section be updated? >>>> >>>Hi Lyle, >>> >>>ILA is not NAT! :-) It is an address transformation process that is >>>always undone before the packet is received so that receiver sees >>>original packet. In this manner ILA is really just an efficient >>>mechanism of creating network overlays. In this manner additional >>>functionality (policy, lawful intercept, etc.) can be higher layers >>>independent of the actual overlay mechanism. >>> >>>Tom >>> >>>> 3. Will a feature support comparison be made for each solution with >>>>the UPF functions to ensure coverage? >>>> >>>> 4. Will MFA be proposed as an option ( >>>> >>>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa-00 >>>> >>>> )? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Lyle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>dmm mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >>_______________________________________________ >>dmm mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > >_______________________________________________ >dmm mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
