1 / 11

MIDCOM MIB Status of analysis and Issues Design Team members:

IETF 58 MIDCOM WG. MIDCOM MIB Status of analysis and Issues Design Team members: Editor MIDCOM MIB analysis: Mary Barnes mary.barnes@nortelnetworks.com Co-Editors Semantic Analysis: Martin Stiemerling stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de Juergen Quittek quittek@ccrle.nec.de

marcus
Download Presentation

MIDCOM MIB Status of analysis and Issues Design Team members:

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. IETF 58 MIDCOM WG • MIDCOM MIB • Status of analysis and Issues • Design Team members: • Editor MIDCOM MIB analysis: Mary Barnes mary.barnes@nortelnetworks.com • Co-Editors Semantic Analysis: Martin Stiemerling stiemerling@ccrle.nec.de • Juergen Quittekquittek@ccrle.nec.de • Tom Taylortaylor@nortelnetworks.com • Co-author IPSec Policy Config MIB: Wes Hardaker hardaker@tislabs.com • Co-authorMIDCOM Framework, NAT-MIB:Pyda Srisureshsrisuresh@yahoo.com • Co-chair SNMPv3 WG: David Harrington dbh@enterasys.com

  2. Overview • Current status of MIDCOM mib development : • Progress • Current drafts • Summary of current issues • Plans going Forward

  3. Where are we? • Status of analysis and documentation • WG MIB analysis document updated to reflect the current status and additional detailed analysis of the applicability of the MIDCOM semantics to the NAT mib: • draft-ietf-midcom-mib-analysis-01.txt • NAT-MIB undergoing review by MIB doctor (Juergen Scjoenwaler). • Awaiting approval to split FW functionality from IPSec Policy Configuration MIB (IPSEC-POLICY-MIB).

  4. Where are we? • Design team had regular conference calls (bi-weekly/monthly) to resolve the details: • Much work accomplished in terms of understanding the problem, but ended on some philosophical debates as to the best solution approach. • Many of the concerns relate to those discussed with regards to the semantics document. • Two MIB documents put forth by members of the design team with the intent of providing concrete details representing different views on the realization of the MIDCOM MIB: • draft-stiemerling-midcom-mib-00.txt • draft-srisuresh-midcom-mib-01.txt

  5. Issues: • Primary difference in opinion on interfaces: • draft-srisuresh-midcom-mib-01.txt • MIDCOM transactions should control middlebox resources. • Interface between MIDCOM MIB and NAT or FW MIBs is explicit. • draft-stiemerling-midcom-mib-00.txt • MIDCOM Agent interface to NAT or FW is implicit via the MIDCOM MIB. • Interface between MIDCOM MIB and NAT or FW MIBs is implicit.

  6. Original Issues: • Different views result in the following detailed differences: • draft-srisuresh-midcom-mib-01.txt • PRRs have a direct relationship to NAT Binds • PERs have a direct relationship to NAT sessions and FW rules. • Agent specific Group membership IDs should be assignable by agents. • draft-stiemerling-midcom-mib-00.txt • PRR is an abstract entity, related to binds and address maps. • PER is an abstract entity whose relationship goes beyond the NAT session. • Middlebox should assign and manage Group IDs for the agent.

  7. Issue - Use of term “bind” and PRR • “bind” in NAT-MIB is not equivalent to “bind” in semantics. • NAT-MIB: • Bind means association of addresses is valid and does not change until it’s no longer in use. • NAT Address map reflects configuration, provides block of addresses. Binding of addresses stays unchanged for a period of time. • Problem: NAT-MIB bind is more than a reservation as it enables a packet flow determined by direction attribute in the natAddrBindTranslationEntity. • Proposal: PRR can be accomplished with a NAT bind by using a NONE/null direction value in the bitmap for natAddrBindTranslationEntity

  8. Other Agreements: PER and IDs • PER and sessions: • PER has a direct relationship to NAT session: • Basically, if PER is successful, then you have a Session. • Assignment of Ids: • Agreement that Group Ids are unique per Middlebox • Midcom agent table to be indexed by the tuple of (SNMP session Id, Midcom agent index).

  9. Issues related to Semantics • Semantics related (not impacting semantics doc, but requiring a position for the MIDCOM MIB): • Is wildcarding needed for A0? • Need wildcarding for port. • Port range: limit to a range of 2?

  10. Issues between two MIBs: Remaining specific Differences on two MIBs: • Stiemerling: • Everything in one table • 26 managed objects • Serves for NAT and FW control • PER transaction performed by creating a row in table • Duplicates some information of NAT MIB • Srisuresh: • 6 tables for NAT plus at least 2 for FW • 82 managed objects for NAT • PER transaction performed by creating rows in 1-4 tables • No duplication of information from NAT and FW MIB.

  11. Plans going Forward • Design team members to work through detailed merge. • Seek interim feedback from MIB doctors. • Behind schedule for current WG milestones, with the following new schedule proposed:

More Related