Subject: Re: [sunset4] WG Adoption call for draft-chen-sunset4-nat64-port-allocation

From: Lee Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:21:22 -0400

On 5/4/15, 10:29 AM, "JF Tremblay" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Inline. 
>
>> On May 3, 2015, at 9:36 AM, GangChen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you for the comments. I'd seen it's great useful to improve the
>> draft quality.
>> Please see my reply inline.
>> 
>> 2015-05-02 4:36 GMT+08:00, JF Tremblay
>><[email-masked]>:
>> 
>>> 2.4.1 "The storage of log information may pose a challenge to
>>>operators,
>>> since it requires additional resources and data inspection processes to
>>> identify users."
>>> The data inspection remark here does not make sense. The NAT might
>>>correlate
>>> source addresses to user information if it has it available, but it
>>>won¹t
>>> inspect. The NAT does not store either.
>> 
>> the issue is a NAT may don't know what source address should be
>>correlated.
>> Therefore, the NAT have to store entire information preparing the
>>searching.
>> For your information, the NAT should store at least three-months log
>> in our networks.
>
>In my opinion: 
>- NATs do not / should not store logs. This is done by an external server
>(syslog or other).

True; the operators of NATs store logs.

>- NATs do not correlate source addresses to users, unless it already has
>that information available. This can be done offline by a server with
>much more ressources.

Also true. As guidance to the operator of a NAT, though, this is useful
guidance.

Lee

>/JF