MSOs logging subscriber flows, what could possibly go wrong? Drive slow, like a Sandvine under load, Paul Wall
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com>wrote: > > On 18/11/2013 3:06 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > >> It's looking more and more like NAT64 will be in our future. One of the >> valid concerns for NAT64 - much like NAT44 - is being able to determine >> the identity of a given user through the NAT at a given point in time. >> How feasible this is depends on how robust/scalable $XYZ's translation >> logging capabilities are, and possibly how easily that data can be >> matched against a source of identify information, such as RADIUS >> accounting logs, DHCP lease logs, etc. >> >> Other IPv6 transition mechanisms appear to be no less thorny than NAT64 >> for a variety of reasons. >> >> I'm curious to see how others are planning to tackle (or already have >> tacked) this issue. Discussing vendor-specific solutions is fine, but I >> think keeping things as platform/vendor agnostic as possible for the >> time being would allow this thread to be more beneficial to a wider >> audience. >> >> The floor is open... >> >> jms >> >> > For logging, the following IETF Behave WG drafts are nearly complete. The > IPFIX version will be updated soon (I hope) to more closely match the > SYSLOG based one. They both will match the new NAT MIB document, also > listed below: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-ipfix-nat-logging/ > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-syslog-nat-logging/ > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-nat-mib/ > > There is also work being done on reducing log volumes by bulk allocation > of ports. The following drafts will be combined to meet a Sunset WG > milestone: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation/ > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-behave-natx4-log-reduction/ > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn/ > > Tom Taylor > > >
