Joe Touch wrote:
9. ICMP
I quoted the start of the section. The first sentence, without further
qualification, is inaccurate, IMO.
Anyway, most of the discussion in the section is inapplicable to
end to end NAT where public source addresses are used even within
private networks.
ICMP
On 2/3/2011 1:48 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
9. ICMP
I quoted the start of the section. The first sentence, without further
qualification, is inaccurate, IMO.
...
ICMP messages do not themselves have port numbers, but they are intended
to *carry* port numbers of the
Joe Touch wrote:
9. ICMP
FYI, traceroute both with UDP or ICMP ECHO is working to/from
/between private network behind end to end gateway is working.
Understood, but my issue is that ICMP is more than just ICMP echo;
many other messages are the result of sending a regular packet (as with
Fernando Gont wrote:
The fact that geo-location was not considered in the IP design, is
irrelevant. As noted, IP wasn't meant for production, either.
As the address sharing occurs only at the edge, it is quite
unlikely that geo location approximation breaks.
You can assume hosts sharing an
On 01/02/2011 10:35 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
Over the long term, deploying IPv6 is the only way to ease pressure
on the public IPv4 address pool and thereby mitigate the need for
address sharing mechanisms that give rise to the issues identified
herein.
?? This sentence is
Joe,
Thanks for your review. A couple of comments inline:
Transport issues include:
- refers to Well Known ports
Throughout this document, this usually refers to the entire Assigned
range, i.e., Well-known (i.e., System) as well as Registered (i.e.,
User) ports. It would be preferable to
Hi, Fernando,
On 2/2/2011 12:03 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 01/02/2011 10:35 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
...
...
7. Geo-location and Geo-proximity
?INT? This section is, IMO, odd; IP address never meant physical
location anyway, and tunnels obviate that meaning regardless of the
impact of NATs
Joe Touch wrote:
9. ICMP
ICMP does not carry any port information and is consequently
problematic for address sharing mechanisms.
ICMP messages are specifically intended to include enough of the
transport header to enable port demuxing at the end receiver.
I think it says ICMP
Hi, Jari,
Notes below...
Joe
On 2/1/2011 10:10 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
- parallel connections
i.e., that assume that a single IP address used
for multiple connections implies a single machine,
as with striping, multipath, or systems that use
multiple concurrent connections for different
On 2/2/2011 1:55 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
9. ICMP
ICMP does not carry any port information and is consequently
problematic for address sharing mechanisms.
ICMP messages are specifically intended to include enough of the
transport header to enable port demuxing at the end
On 02/02/2011 02:38 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
?INT? This section is, IMO, odd; IP address never meant physical
location anyway, and tunnels obviate that meaning regardless of the
impact of NATs or other sharing techniques.
Agreed. But geo-location is nevertheless widely used for marketing
On 2/2/2011 5:04 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
At the least, it's worth noting that geolocation is already broken by
tunnels, and that IP addressing does not ensure geographic proximity
before attributing breakage on NATs or other sharing.
Tunnels need not break geo-location. -- They do not
On 02/02/2011 10:08 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/2/2011 5:04 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
At the least, it's worth noting that geolocation is already broken by
tunnels, and that IP addressing does not ensure geographic proximity
before attributing breakage on NATs or other sharing.
Tunnels
On 02/02/2011 10:24 p.m., Fernando Gont wrote:
On 2/2/2011 5:04 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
At the least, it's worth noting that geolocation is already broken by
tunnels, and that IP addressing does not ensure geographic proximity
before attributing breakage on NATs or other sharing.
On 2/2/2011 5:30 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 02/02/2011 10:24 p.m., Fernando Gont wrote:
On 2/2/2011 5:04 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
At the least, it's worth noting that geolocation is already broken by
tunnels, and that IP addressing does not ensure geographic proximity
before attributing
On 2/2/2011 5:24 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 02/02/2011 10:08 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
On 2/2/2011 5:04 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
...
At the least, it's worth noting that geolocation is already broken by
tunnels, and that IP addressing does not ensure geographic proximity
before attributing
Joe,
On 02/02/2011 10:49 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
When I tunnel using an ISI address, whomever sees my address thinks I'm
in California.
[..]
And one might argue that, in this type of scenario, this breakeage of
geo-location might, in some cases, be desirable.
It can't break if it was
Hi, all,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
document's authors for their information and to allow them to address
any
18 matches
Mail list logo
