Hi Behcet, I have two comments:
* Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism. This is why the introduction mentions already the following: As reported in [RFC6269<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6269>], several issues are encountered when an IP address is shared among several subscribers. These issues are encountered in various deployment contexts: e.g., Carrier Grade NAT (CGN), application proxies or A+P [RFC6346<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6346>]. * RFC6346 is provided as an example of a solution making use of port sets. You are right, other solutions (than a+p) can be considered but having one pointer to a solution example is just fair. No need to be exhaustive here. Cheers, Med ________________________________ De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : mercredi 13 février 2013 17:36 À : Suresh Krishnan Cc : Brian Haberman; [email protected]; [email protected] Objet : Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis Hi Suresh, On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Behcet, On 02/12/2013 05:57 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[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. Right. But section 4.6 is about assigning port sets and Brian asked if that was any specific mechanisms that assigned port sets. A+P does so. Not sure about what you mean by "In A+P there is also the use of a shared public IPv4 address". This is the reason why we need a HOST_ID at all. I think that this draft is not about A+P (don't ask me why, ask Med :-) ). The correct reference for Section 4.6 would be BBF document WT-146 on Subscriber Sessions Regards, Behcet Thanks Suresh
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
