1 / 15

NAT State Synchronization using SCSP draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-01

SCSP RFC2334 solves server synchronization/cache replication; specifies NAT state sync with CSA format. Requirements for redundancy, data synchronization, reliability, hot-standby. Use SCSP to sync NAT database for robustness. Should NAT synchronization be standardized? Debate on including NAT44. SCSP linkage to routing protocols for deployment. Proposed addition to WG charter for NAT sync standardization discussions.

jennieh
Download Presentation

NAT State Synchronization using SCSP draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-01

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NAT State Synchronization using SCSPdraft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-01 Dean Cheng (chengd@huawei.com) Xiaohu Xu (xuxh@huawei.com) Joel Halpern (Joel.Halpern@ericsson.com) Mohamed Boucadair (mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com) IETF77, Anaheim

  2. Changes made in 01 • Added a paragraph in Section 1.2 to emphasize the use of the link state based algorithm • Added an editor’s note in Section 2.1 regarding the inclusion/exclusion of NAT44 • Minor editorial changes

  3. SCSP – A Protocol for Data Cache Synchronization • Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP - RFC2334) solves a general server synchronization/cache-replication problem for distributed databases. • SCSP uses link-state based algorithm to reliably flood database entries among participating servers. • SCSP defines application-independent protocol mechanisms and requires applications to define their own formats for cache records, called Cache State Advertisement (CSA). • This document specifies a method of using SCSP to achieve NAT state synchronization among NAT devices in a redundancy group including associated CSA format.

  4. Requirements for NAT Devices Deployed with Redundancy • Toachieve hot-standby, data synchronization is a MUST. • Reliability and robustness are very much desired during data synchronization process. • Stateful contents in data cache maintained by the primary NAT MUST be synchronized on all participating NAT devices in a redundancy group. • When a primary NAT device in a redundancy group fails, all existing NAT sessions must survive without any perceived impact on the traffic (e.g., severe delay, loss, etc.)

  5. Use SCSP to Sync NAT Database • Multiple NAT devices deployed on the border between two IP domains form a redundancy group which, possibly along with other redundancy groups, belong to a SCSP Server Group (SG), identified by SGID. • Within a redundancy group, there is a primary and one or more backup devices. When the primary NAT device fails, a new primary NAT device will be elected. • For each NAT type, a separate SCSP Protocol ID (PID) is assigned by IANA. • Currently NAT type includes NAT44, NAT64, and NAT46. • The method described is applicable to stateful NAT only.

  6. NAT State Refreshment Mechanism • Only the primary NAT device can create new cache entries. • NAT database entries are aged. The primary device is responsible to re-originate and re-flood them before aging out for active entries. • After a switchover, the newly elected primary NAT device MUST re-originate all cache entries that were originated by the previous primary NAT device, with NAT contents remain the same followed by a reliable flooding defined by SCSP.

  7. Should NAT Synchronization be standardized? • There are some who believe there is no need to… • There have been proprietary implementations deployed. • But there are others who like to see a standard based synchronization mechanism for NAT. • These include some carriers too… • We feel that… • There will be more networks that need to deploy NAT in the next few years, where a standard based synchronization would be useful. • There are examples for co-existence of standards based protocols and proprietary protocols both deployed.

  8. Should this draft include NAT44? • There are some who believe there is no need to… • There have been many proprietary handling for NAT44 synchronization. • But there are others (including some carriers) who like to see NAT44 synchronization also be standardized • There will be more NAT44 (e.g., DS-Lite) to be deployed… • We feel that… • It makes sense to include NAT44 if some that will deploy it. • But otherwise, we can take NAT44 out

  9. Has SCSP been deployed? • It is true that there are not many applications that are based on SCSP today • There have been many proprietary handling for NAT44 synchronization. • But SCSP uses exact the same link state algorithm and mechanisms as in routing protocols including OSPF, IS-IS, which have been widely deployed… • …and the proposed NAT synchronization protocol uses the same algorithm and mechanism.

  10. The Next … • If the WG thinks standardizing the NAT sync mechanism is useful, let’s add this work to the WG charter.

  11. Backup Slides

  12. SCSP Message Mandatory Common Part • 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol ID | Server Group ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Unused | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender ID Len | Recvr ID Len | Number of Records | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Sender ID (Variable Length) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Receiver ID (Variable Length) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  13. Values for the SCSP “Mandatory Common Part” • Protocol ID = TBD • There is a separate Protocol ID for NAT44, NAT64, and NAT46, assigned by IANA. • Server Group ID = NAT device redundancy group ID • Sender ID Len • = 4, if IPv4 address is used • =16, if IPv6 address is used. • Per RFC2334, an identifier assigned to a server (in this case, a NAT device), might be the protocol address of the sending server. • Recvr ID Len • = 4, if IPv4 address is used • =16, if IPv6 address is used. • Per RFC2334, an identifier assigned to a server (in this case, a NAT device), might be the protocol address of the receiving server.

  14. Values for the SCSP “CSAS Record” • Cache Key Len = 4 • This 4-byte opaque string is generated by the NAT device that originates the CSAS. • Originator ID Len • = 4, if IPv4 address is used • = 16, if IPv6 address is used. • Per RFC2334, an identifier assigned to a server (in this case, a NAT device) might be the protocol address of the server.

  15. NAT Specific CSA • 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol | Option Length | Unused | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Port Mapped from | Port Mapped to | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Address Mapped from (Specific to NAT type) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Address Mapped to (Specific to NAT type) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / TLV Options (Variable Length) / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

More Related