> Dear Gang, > >>> as far as I can understand your draft, you make NAPT44 in the CE > obligatory. >> >> [Gang] Yes. This is to avoid the problem where there are applications >> that attempt >> to bind to specific ports that are not part of the allowed port range. > > Well, if the application/operating system supports the > standard/protocol/technology, then it should only bind to the port, which > CPE would normally use to translate source ports of the packets. If there > is no such operating system/application, NAPT44 must be used, of course. > >>> However, this is not the case for 4rd, dIVI, SA46T-AS and Lightweight >>> 4over6 A+P drafts. >>
>> [Gang] I guess this is always the case for port constrained mechanisms. > > Of course. But you could support various scenarios in the scope of your draft, > not only the common "CPE" one. > No. a+p does not require a NAT44 to be used. This is the case here (my guess) because NAT44 is commonly used in the current CE routers and they don't wish to waste public IPv4 addresses. Also NAT44 usage has nothing to do with the port range restrictions of the CE. It is normal behavior of NAPT to select a different source port for the outgoing packet and the port range restriction comes into use here, CE has to use a source port from its range. Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
