One of the issues David Harrington raised regarding the NAT MIB -11
version was what he thought might be an excessive number of compliance
levels.
(Issue 36, http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/wiki/MibIss036)
These are the ones currently defined:
(1) Basic NAT, all mappings are administered.
(2) Dynamic port mappings are supported
(3) Address maps and address pooling are supported
(4) "Receive fragments out of order" is supported
(5) Subscribers are supported
I think we can combine the first with the second one. We can get rid of
the fragment-related one by redefining the dropped fragment counter to
count all dropped fragments and providing an object to indicate the
fragmentation behaviour to help interpret the counter.
This gives us three application scenarios:
-- basic NAT: support of port mappings only. Objects in the
natv2InstanceTable, natv2NextProtocolTable, and natv2PortMapTable
are relevant.
-- large-scale NAT: additional support of address pools and address
maps, hence natv2PoolTable, natv2PoolRangeTable, and
natv2AddressMapTable come into the picture.
-- subscriber-aware NAT: additional support of subscribers, hence
natv2Subscribers and natv2SubscriberIngressInterfaceIdentifierTable
are added.
Comments?
Tom Taylor
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
