Subject: RE: [Ietf-behave] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-02.txt

From: "Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 10:58:42 -0700 (PDT)

> REQ-11: It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT support ICMP Processing.
>     a) The ICMP timeout SHOULD be greater than 2 seconds.
> 

The above is vague, it does not specify exactly what the requirement is.
IMO, the requirement is that NAT should not delete any mapping as a
result of seeing Destination unreachable. BTW, how was the timeout of 2
secs derived?

Senthil

> --
> Saikat

---

From: Saikat Guha <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 14:13:34 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 10:58 -0700, Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) wrote:
> result of seeing Destination unreachable. 

The requirement actually is much stronger -- the NAT shouldn't delete
the mapping as a result of any ICMP packet; the details being in section
9. But I agree with you and would prefer something similar to the long
form with the explicit sub-bullets. 

> BTW, how was the timeout of 2
> secs derived?

*shrug* What's the timeout for, even?

-- 
Saikat
Attachment:
signature.asc

---

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 03:32:48 -0700 (PDT)

2 seconds came as number larger than realistic RTT on satellite link - I
have no idea if that is correct but that was the logic.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-behave-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ietf-behave-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Saikat Guha
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 11:13 PM
To: Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)
Cc: Behave
Subject: RE: [Ietf-behave] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-02.txt

> result of seeing Destination unreachable.

The requirement actually is much stronger -- the NAT shouldn't delete the
mapping as a result of any ICMP packet; the details being in section 9. But
I agree with you and would prefer something similar to the long form with
the explicit sub-bullets.

--
Saikat