Hi Med, I think that email discussions we had on this issue in fmc list last year will provide good context in these discussions, please remember them.
See inline: On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:16 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Re-, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > ------------------------------ > *De :* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] > *Envoyé :* mercredi 13 février 2013 18:01 > *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN > *Cc :* Suresh Krishnan; Brian Haberman; > [email protected]; [email protected] > > *Objet :* Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: > draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis > > Hi Med, > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> Hi Behcet, >> >> I have two comments: >> >> * Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism. >> > > I am not sure on A+P? > [Med] both A+P and NAT-based address sharing solutions are covered by > rfc6269. host identifier is just a means to distinguish hosts under the > same IP address. It does not matter how address sharing is implemented. > > A+P requires point-to-point link, right? > >> 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. >> >> > Again, I am not sure if Section 4.6 describes what A+P says? > [Med] That section says non overlapping port sets are assigned to hosts > sharing the same IP address. The text does not describe if the shared > address is also configured to those hosts or if there is a NAT in the host, > etc. These are implementation variants. There is no value to provide such > details in that section. Adding a ref to A+P is just fair. This does not > preclude other contexts. > > If Section 4.6 applies to A+P, there is no need for such a text, just say Use A+P and give the reference, right? Regards, Behcet
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
