Hi Suresh, On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Brian, > Thanks for the review. I wanted to clarify three points that you > raised and I will ask the authors take care of the rest. > > On 02/11/2013 04:11 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: > > 7. In Section 4.1.2, it would be good to describe any issues that the > > approach has with the original use of the Identification field for > > fragmentation reassembly. If a middlebox changes the ID field, weird > > things can/will happen if those packets are fragmented somewhere. > > Agree. I think this is precisely the reason that the mechanism for > putting the HOST_ID in the IP-ID is a non-starter. > > > 11. Is Section 4.6 theoretical or is there a specific reference that can > > be added for this technique? > > There are several mechanisms that use port sets for IPv4 address > sharing. A+P (RFC6346) is one such mechanism. > > Section 4.6 is not about about A+P. In A+P there is also the use of a shared public IPv4 address. I think that Section 4.6 refers to the port range solution for an RG with NAT once suggested in BBF. Regards, Behcet
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
