> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 9:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; int- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal- > analysis > > Hi Med, > > I realize that you published a revision with the A+P reference. However, > I believe A+P is a problem for address sharing with its own solution, > i.e. the port range is the host id.
Except a remote server does not know the address is shared, nor what port range is assigned to a user. Lacking that, it does not have a solution. With that, I would hesitate to rely on the system too much, because changing number of ports per user would need to somehow be coordinated with server logs -- which seems unlikely/impossible. -d > I would favor removing Sec. 4.6. Anyway you have not been exhaustive on > the solution space. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:51 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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; draft-ietf-intarea-nat- > [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]> 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; draft-ietf- > [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
