From tim@evensweb.com Thu Jan 19 18:49:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D636F21F85C6 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:49:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZP+OVWpHyIh for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.evensweb.com (mail.evensweb.com [50.57.88.152]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A2D21F85BB for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from evensweb.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.evensweb.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E32F1F0008; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:49:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_a9dd8a2f6d5c537fce9f1836c31cfcce" Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:49:30 -0700 From: tim@evensweb.com To: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570a9d943f9f515e606548f669c29144@evensweb.com> X-Sender: tim@evensweb.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.5.3 Subject: Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-06.txt X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:49:36 -0000 --=_a9dd8a2f6d5c537fce9f1836c31cfcce Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 What do you guys think about updating the draft to support TCP sessions initiated by the receiver to the router? In our environment, we NAT and FW the BMP server and it's somewhat problematic since we have to build a static NAT for the BMP server and open a FW rule from the outside in. It would make things a lot simpler if the BMP server (receiver) could establish the TCP connection to the router, which may go through PAT. --Tim --=_a9dd8a2f6d5c537fce9f1836c31cfcce Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

What do you guys think about updating the draft to support TCP sessions = initiated by the receiver to the router?   In our environment, we NAT = and FW the BMP server and it's somewhat problematic since we have to build = a static NAT for the BMP server and open a FW rule from the outside in. &nb= sp; It would make things a lot simpler if the BMP server (receiver) could e= stablish the TCP connection to the router, which may go through PAT.  =

--Tim

--=_a9dd8a2f6d5c537fce9f1836c31cfcce--