Subject: [OPSAWG] CGN Deployments Over MPLS/VPN Draft

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:58:13 -0500

OPSAWG WG,

I am seeking feedback and comments related to a draft which I had
originally submitted a back in 2010.  This draft describes a network
architecture for deploying CGN based services (NAT444) using MPLS/VPNs.

This [Network] architecture was developed a couple of years ago and has
worked well in production (it works already).  A number of other operators
have shown interest in this option as it solves a number of the technical
challenges when considering CGN deployments (these considerations are
capture in document).

Latest Posted Version -
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuarsingh-lsn-deployment-06 (recently
updated)

Although I am not an advocate of CGNs, it will be a forced options for many
operators who face IPv4 run out over the next few years. It was the goal of
the authors to help ease this reality by providing an operational option
which would work if needed.   The document does post an option for IPv6
dual stack operation, but is somewhat focused on adding in CGN (as this is
seen as a technical challenge in running state networks with preexisting
IPv4 deployments).

I had originally intended to discuss this in BEHAVE given that this deals
with CGN, but that group was not quite suited for this type of work.  v6ops
is focused on IPv6 (rightfully so) and that is also not an appropriate
group for this work.  Therefore we are seeking input as a potential item
for OPSAWG (given that this document is operationally focused and presents
no new standards - only uses ones defined).

So the main questions as it stands are:
1. Can we discuss this draft in this forum?
2. Comments as to whether we can adopt as WG item and/or generate discussion

What I am not here to debate is whether CGN is good or bad.  I think we all
agree CGN is by nature bad, but when needed or forced to do so, it is
essential that operators do it well and with the least impact as they can.

regards,

Victor K

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:58:26 +0530

> I had originally intended to discuss this in BEHAVE given that this
> deals with CGN, but that group was not quite suited for this type of
> work.

in what way is it not suited?  were the behave chairs not helpful?

> v6ops is focused on IPv6 (rightfully so) and that is also not an
> appropriate group for this work.

quite.

> Therefore we are seeking input as a potential item for OPSAWG (given
> that this document is operationally focused and presents no new
> standards - only uses ones defined).

> 2. Comments as to whether we can adopt as WG item and/or generate

i would personally prefer to see this in behave where the expertise on
nat is concentrated.  this is not a simple "how to run it or how to
manage it draft."

> essential that operators do it well and with the least impact as they can.

thank you for all the "we know this is stupid and evil but we're doing
it anyway and we don't want to discuss it" statements.  they are very
reassuring.

randy

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:38:18 -0500

Sent from my iPad

> in what way is it not suited?  were the behave chairs not helpful?

Chairs were always helpful.

> nat is concentrated.  this is not a simple "how to run it or how to

I had this thought as well except when looking into MPLS/VPNs and operating routing, we seemed to have gap.  MPLS expertise are in other groups (although we are not defining mpls here, we are using it).  Operators however do often have this knowledge and are the target of this draft.  However your thoughts are noted.  Thanks for feedback.

> it anyway and we don't want to discuss it" statements.  they are very

Understood.  At least smart operators will only do such a thing with V6 plans and or rollout. 

Victor K