WFM.
Simon
Le 2014-12-05 20:34, "Tom Taylor" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I've had second thoughts. The data used for packet classification by
> subscriber and realm is actually configuration data. "When in doubt, throw
> it out": this data didn't belong in the MIB in the first place unless
> someone sees it as particularly valuable for trouble-shooting.
>
> Tom Taylor
>
> On 04/12/2014 7:24 PM, Tom Taylor wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking through the implications of the NAT application
>> scenarios presented in my E-mail of 21 November ("NAT MIB: compliance
>> levels"). One of them is that the large-scale NAT application, even
>> though it does not understand individual subscribers, must have a means
>> to classify received packets into address realms. The conclusion is that
>> the packet classification criteria represented by
>> natSubscriberIdentifierType, natSubscriberVlanIdentifier, etc. in the
>> -11 version of the NAT MIB draft should be pulled out of
>> natSubscribersTable and put into a separate realm table. My instinct is
>> to make this NAT instance specific, in that:
>> -- different NAT instances on the same device may support different realms
>> -- different NAT instances may use different criteria to distinguish the
>> same realms, as a kind of load-sharing control
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Tom Taylor
>>
>
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
