Subject: RE: [Ietf-behave] NAT Mapping refresh vs NAT filter refresh

From: "Francois Audet" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:50:17 -0700 (PDT)

> Francois,
> 
> You have section 4.3 refering to "Mapping Refresh" behavior 
> and a req-6 that follows it. And, section 5.2 refering to 
> "Filter refresh" with no requirement that follows it. 

Please go read the archive for why we don't have a requirement
for Filter refresh.

> Why does section 5.2 have no requirement associated with it? 

Because people don't think we need one.

> Also, w.r.t. req-6, why is the refresh required only on the outbound?

Please go read the archives. We discussed this before.

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 05:49:39 -0700 (PDT)

Basically, it makes no sense to discuss refreshing a filter in the context of
NATs.  Here is why. 

You donot refresh an entity you donot have. NATs donot have filters. Filtering
is a behavior you observe on certain types of NATs (most notably, Traditinal
NATs), not all NAT types. The filtering behavior is a direct result of the
Address map configuration and the Bindings. So, it makes no sense to discuss
refreshing a filter in the context of NAT.

The term "Address and Port mapping" that you use in your document loosely
refers to "NAT Session" (as defined in RFC 4008), which is a NAT resource. So,
it does make sense to discuss refreshing a NAT Session. 

Another resource that NATs do manage as a resource is "Address/Port Binding"
(also defined in RFC 4008). NATs do refresh the Bindings. Your document makes
no mention of this. 

There is a more fundamental problem in that the behave-udp draft does not use
the right terminology.

cheers,
suresh