Hi Behcet, I'm aware of that context but the problem is that I don't have a good reference to cite for it. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-schott-fmc-requirements-02.txt would be a good reference to cite but unfortunately the port set section was removed in the last version http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schott-fmc-requirements-04.
Saying that, I really think having one example to cite is sufficient. No need to have an exhaustive reference list. Thanks. Cheers, Med ________________________________ De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : mercredi 13 février 2013 20:09 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, 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med ________________________________ De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Envoyé : mercredi 13 février 2013 18:01 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN Cc : Suresh Krishnan; Brian Haberman; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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
