Subject: [Mipshop] Re: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIST 802.21)

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:05:57 +0200

[email-masked] wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As chair of NSIS, I'd be happy to help with any discussion of how GIST
> could be used with 802.21.  As Robert ran through in the meeting today,
> there are 5+ independent implementations of GIST, including several open
> source implementations (I can send links, if there is interest) & we
> have had 2 interop events.
> 
> We have been working on NAT traversal issues, and are looking at
> documenting these issues (currently there is an individual submission on
> this issue),

There seem to be several
draft-pashalidis-nsis-gist-legacynats-00.txt
draft-werner-nsis-natfw-nslp-statemachine-03.txt
draft-pashalidis-nsis-gist-legacynats-00
draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-12.txt

which one?

Alex

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: "Robert Hancock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 22:03:55 +0100

hi alex,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 03 August 2006 21:06
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mipshop] Re: NAT Traversal for GIST (was GIST 802.21)
> 
> 
same as the first ;-)
there is however also draft-pashalidis-nsis-gimps-nattraversal-03.txt
> draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-12.txt

quick summary:
*) draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-12.txt
and 
*) draft-werner-nsis-natfw-nslp-statemachine-03.txt
are actually about using NSIS to signal to NATs (and firewalls) to
control them. so it's not directly relevant to mipshop (just like
the QoS signalling work in NSIS is not directly relevant to NSIS).

the other two are 
*) draft-pashalidis-nsis-gimps-nattraversal-03.txt
[GIST used to be called GIMPS, hence the name]
and
*) draft-pashalidis-nsis-gist-legacynats-00

these are about how to get GIST *through* NATs - the first covers
the case when you are allowed to modify the NAT, the second when
you have to work with a legacy NAT. Both of them cover the 
path coupled case when you are signalling about a flow, which is
very complicated from the NAT traveral point of view because you
have to handle both addressing/port information about the flow, and
about the signalling nodes.

However
=======

before directly looking at these, there is a more fundamental question
about the MIH signalling requirements - namely, will the signalling
messages carry addressing payloads (IP addresses of neighbour ARs
for example, or of the MN). the right way to handle NAT traversal 
for the signalling depends critically on the answer to that. there
is a little more discussion of that point in section 3.5 of the
design considerations draft
(draft-hepworth-mipshop-mih-design-considerations-00).

cheers,

robert h.

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:25:23 -0400

Hi Robert,

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:03:55PM +0100, Robert Hancock wrote:

(snip)

> (draft-hepworth-mipshop-mih-design-considerations-00).

There is a proposal in 802.21 WG that defines an Information Element
for carrying DHCP server address and Foreign Agent or Access Router
address.  Do you think this makes NAT traversal difficult?

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 06:59:48 +0300

Alex,

>draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-natfw-12.txt

Well, there is only one that says GIST & legacy NATs :)  So I'd start
there!  However, see Robert's follow-up email.

The other drafts are about the signaling application for controlling
NATs and firewalls, which I do not think are part of the 802.21 work.

John