Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] NAT/PAT

Expand Messages
  • Matsen, Dean (WA26)
    Carl, If your solution is different from RL-002, why don t you publish it? Perhaps you have solved the problem in a way that avoids this problem. Our front end
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      Carl,

       

      If your solution is different from RL-002, why don't you publish it?  Perhaps you have solved the problem in a way that avoids this problem.

       

      Our front end software detects the introduction of new devices (or the same device instance with a new MAC address).  Whenever the NAT router gets rebooted, it looks like a new device has been added to the BACnet network, which leads to a user warning.  This is a user-requested feature, not an idea that originated from Engineering.

       

      Regards,

      Dean

       

       


      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Carl Neilson
      Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:22 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] NAT/PAT

       

       

      We implemented something close to what RL-002 describes many years ago and it has served us faithfully. The implementation works with other vendor's BBMD implementations and so far we have not encountered an installation where this solution does not work when deployed with a single point of access behind a NAT/PAT. That single point of access is always a BBMD/Router in our installations and the setup works great.

       

      I have not had the opportunity to read through all of the emails that have transpired so maybe there is a problem that we have yet to encounter but if this simple modification to the existing standard works, why consider making more work for ourselves?

       

      Also, it might be worth noting that a BACnet/SSL proposal is in the works which will provide another Internet connectivity solution.

       

      Carl

       


      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Matsen, Dean (WA26)
      Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:00 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [bacnet-ip-wg] NAT/PAT

      The proposal I have still needs a little work (we didn't think of the implications of PAT vs. NAT either).  It is a separate technology in addition to B/IP.

      We thought this was a cleaner solution than fiddling with Annex J.

       

       

      I will refine the proposal and publish it.

       

       

      Regards,

      Dean

       

       


      From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jimmy Rimmer
      Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:43 PM
      To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [bacnet-ip-wg] NAT/PAT

       

      Dean, are you proposing a new technology separate from B/IP, or a full revision of B/IP -- call it B/IP version 2?

       

      Either way, I know that I'd be interested in the proposal.  I'd rather have too many proposals than not enough.

       

       

      On Mar 14, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Matsen, Dean ((WA26)) wrote:

       

       

      As much as I hate to say it, perhaps a new technology is needed.

       

      It seems to me that if we started from scratch, we would wind up with something that was kind of like BACnet/IP + BBMD functionality, but customized for use with NAT/PAT.  This would even allow for future DHCP/DNS considerations.  It could be called "BNFD" for "BACnet NAT Forwarding Device" or something.  

      It seems like this technology would not be THAT difficult to propose, especially if it were modeled after the desirable elements of Annex J.

       

      In the end, this might become a much more intelligent solution than trying to quick-fix the Annex J language to accommodate what we are trying to do.

       

      As it turns out, we at Alerton Honeywell already have a few variants of such proposals (which we have held back in hopes that Roland's proposal becomes an easier fix).  Dare I muddy the waters further by bringing forth one of these proposals?

       

       

      Regards,

      Dean

       

       

      SPONSORED LINKS

      Communication and networking

      Protocol

       


      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

       

       


       

       

      --

      Jimmy Rimmer

      Member of Technical Staff

      Kiyon, Inc

       

      Legal mumbo-jumbo:


      The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.

       

       

    • Matsen, Dean (WA26)
      Ok, here is a proposal that I hope is agreeable to all concerned. It requires some familiarity with RL-002 and the discussion between Roland and Myself
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 17, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        Ok, here is a proposal that I hope is agreeable to all concerned.  

         

        It requires some familiarity with RL-002 and the discussion between Roland and Myself regarding the B/IP addresses being randomly assigned by the NAT/PAT routers.

         

        In the interest of quick turn-around, I worked on this quickly.  If this looks acceptable, I will revise it to stand on its own rather than to depend on other sources.

         

        Regards,

        Dean

         

         


        From: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jimmy Rimmer
        Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:43 PM
        To: bacnet-ip-wg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [bacnet-ip-wg] NAT/PAT

         

        Dean, are you proposing a new technology separate from B/IP, or a full revision of B/IP -- call it B/IP version 2?

         

        Either way, I know that I'd be interested in the proposal.  I'd rather have too many proposals than not enough.

         

         

        On Mar 14, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Matsen, Dean ((WA26)) wrote:



         

        As much as I hate to say it, perhaps a new technology is needed.

         

        It seems to me that if we started from scratch, we would wind up with something that was kind of like BACnet/IP + BBMD functionality, but customized for use with NAT/PAT.  This would even allow for future DHCP/DNS considerations.  It could be called "BNFD" for "BACnet NAT Forwarding Device" or something.  

        It seems like this technology would not be THAT difficult to propose, especially if it were modeled after the desirable elements of Annex J.

         

        In the end, this might become a much more intelligent solution than trying to quick-fix the Annex J language to accommodate what we are trying to do.

         

        As it turns out, we at Alerton Honeywell already have a few variants of such proposals (which we have held back in hopes that Roland's proposal becomes an easier fix).  Dare I muddy the waters further by bringing forth one of these proposals?

         

         

        Regards,

        Dean

         

         

        SPONSORED LINKS

        Communication and networking

        Protocol

         


        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

         

         




         

        --

        Jimmy Rimmer

        Member of Technical Staff

        Kiyon, Inc

         

        Legal mumbo-jumbo:


        The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.