*Objet :* Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation:
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
Hi Med,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
**
Hi Behcet,
I have two comments:
* Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism.
I am not sure
: [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
22:12 À : int-area@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analy...@tools.ietf.org Objet :
[Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
All, I have completed my AD evaluation for the above draft and
have some feedback for the group. I will focus on the substantive
comments
On 2/13/13 1:16 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Brian,
On 02/11/2013 07:44 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Suresh,
On 2/11/13 7:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan 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
de Brian Haberman
Envoyé : lundi 11 février 2013 22:12 À : int-area@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analy...@tools.ietf.org Objet :
[Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
All, I have completed my AD evaluation for the above draft and
have some feedback
Hi Suresh,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com 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
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
Haberman; draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analy...@tools.ietf.org;
int-area@ietf.org
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
suresh.krish...@ericsson.commailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi
On 2/13/13 11:12 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
I would suggest re-ordering the table so that deployed approaches are
collected together (and labeling them as deployed). If the HTTP
Forwarded header is the only deployed approach, I would simply add a
note for the others stating
Hi Med,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
**
Hi Behcet,
I have two comments:
* Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism.
I am not sure on A+P?
A+P requires point-to-point link, right?
This is why the introduction mentions
@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
Hi Med,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Behcet,
I have two comments:
* Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing
evaluation:
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
Hi Med,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com 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
On 2/11/2013 4:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan 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
-analy...@tools.ietf.org
Objet : [Int-area] AD evaluation:
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
All,
I have completed my AD evaluation for the above draft and have
some feedback for the group. I will focus on the substantive comments
for the time being since some of them may result in re
Hi Suresh,
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com 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
Hi Brian,
On 02/11/2013 07:44 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Suresh,
On 2/11/13 7:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan 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
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
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the review. I wanted to clarify three points that you
raised
evaluation:
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
* Shouldn't there be an additional metric that covers the
impact/cost of
needing client or middlebox code changes?
* Where did the 100% success ratio for IP-ID come from?
There have been
documented cases of OSes setting
All,
I have completed my AD evaluation for the above draft and have
some feedback for the group. I will focus on the substantive comments
for the time being since some of them may result in re-written text in
places. I will follow up with the document authors on editorial nits
and such
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
Hi Suresh,
On 2/11/13 7:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan 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
20 matches
Mail list logo
