Subject: RE: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway

From: Randy Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:41:13 -0800

Obviously, this cannot be a generic SNMP management station, because
management stations just don't do this kind of thing.  I haven't been
following the MIB standardization process very closely, but I'm assuming
that someone is working on  a "standard" NAT MIB? I would think you would
need the ALG support anyway. It would cover far more cases than a management
station approach.

Randy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohit
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: 12/11/00 9:04 PM
Subject: (NAT) SNMP application layer gateway

Hi, 

  One of our customer is asking us for the support of 
  SNMP application layer gateway on CISCO router.

  RFC2962 covers most of the aspect of the SNMP ALG.
   
  As we don't want to use router resources for SNMP ALG 
  then according to RFC2962  it can be a separate entity, that may
  reside on a separate node.

  But we are planning for an alternate solution where we will
  define an NAT-MIB which will define the NAT Translation Table.
  The Management station will query the NAT-MIB and perform the
  address translation at the management station itself.

  We believe that it should solve the payload translation problem
  (which ALG would have done otherwise). It would be nice if
  someone from this alias could comment on the same.

  Thanks
  Rohit
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

---

From: Rohit <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:38:15 +0530

Hi Randy, 

  I do agree that on the SNMP Management station side we need
  to have an extra layer performing the NAT specific stuff.
  If anyone is already working on the "standard" NAT MIB , that
  will be great for us otherwise we will have to define the MIB.
  If we can provide this type of extra support on the management station
  side why do we need ALG support. Anyway we do support proxy according
to 
  RFC2573.

  Thanks
  Rohit

-

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:51:49 +0100

>>>>> Rohit  writes:

Rohit> I do agree that on the SNMP Management station side we need
Rohit> to have an extra layer performing the NAT specific stuff.

You are basically putting the NAT into the management station if I
understand correctly.

Rohit> If anyone is already working on the "standard" NAT MIB , that
Rohit> will be great for us otherwise we will have to define the MIB.
Rohit> If we can provide this type of extra support on the management
Rohit> station side why do we need ALG support. Anyway we do support
Rohit> proxy according to RFC2573.

So why do you not just use proxies?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<[email-masked]>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

---

From: Rohit <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:07:12 +0530

Hi, 

> You are basically putting the NAT into the management station if I

  Yes , we are planning to do so.

> So why do you not just use proxies?

  Proxy Forwarder will just forward the SNMP request, it won't translate
the conflicting 
  IP addresses.

  Thanks
  Rohit 

-

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:17:34 +0100

>>>>> Rohit  writes:

Rohit> Proxy Forwarder will just forward the SNMP request, it won't
Rohit> translate the conflicting IP addresses.

Yes, the management application needs to understand the
situation. Note that an SNMP ALG will only be able to do some
translation and thus it does not really provide a transparent view for
the management application either. And an SNMP ALG has the potential
to screw up SNMP protocol semantics...

/js

-