Subject: [OPSAWG] NAT MIB: Tying packet classification to address realms rather than subscribers

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:24:52 -0500

I've been thinking through the implications of the NAT application 
scenarios presented in my E-mail of 21 November ("NAT MIB: compliance 
levels"). One of them is that the large-scale NAT application, even 
though it does not understand individual subscribers, must have a means 
to classify received packets into address realms. The conclusion is that 
the packet classification criteria represented by 
natSubscriberIdentifierType, natSubscriberVlanIdentifier, etc. in the 
-11 version of the NAT MIB draft should be pulled out of 
natSubscribersTable and put into a separate realm table. My instinct is 
to make this NAT instance specific, in that:
-- different NAT instances on the same device may support different realms
-- different NAT instances may use different criteria to distinguish the 
same realms, as a kind of load-sharing control

Comments?

Tom Taylor

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:34:02 -0500

I've had second thoughts. The data used for packet classification by 
subscriber and realm is actually configuration data. "When in doubt, 
throw it out": this data didn't belong in the MIB in the first place 
unless someone sees it as particularly valuable for trouble-shooting.

Tom Taylor

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 12:46:33 -0700

WFM.

Simon
Le 2014-12-05 20:34, "Tom Taylor" <[email-masked]> a écrit :

> subscriber and realm is actually configuration data. "When in doubt, throw
> it out": this data didn't belong in the MIB in the first place unless
> someone sees it as particularly valuable for trouble-shooting.
>
> Tom Taylor
>