Hi Med, Le 21 sept. 2011 à 07:54, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> a écrit :
> Hi Behcet, > > It is part of the service provider business to offer services which rely on > the 0-1023 range even in a shared address environment (e.g., host an FTP > server, etc.). Because statically not all subscribers use these features, the > whole 0-1023 range may be assigned only to few subscribers (whether this is > on-demand or during the service subscription, is out of scope of what we are > doing here). As such, the ability to assign or not that port range should be > left to each SP and not excluded by default. > > We analyzed two types of algorithms in draft-bsd: > * algorithms which exclude by construction that range. Any solution that permits to assign exclusive addresses to some customers does permit to assign ports 0-1023 to them. It is only for restricted port sets of shared addresses that, for fairness and simplicity, avoiding to assign any WK port exclusion to any customer is proposed. Cheers, RD > * algorithms which leave excluding that range to the SP: i.e., the algorithm > allows to generate a port range including the 0-1023 but the SP may decide to > not assign it to any requesting user. This should be part of the SP policies. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mardi 20 septembre 2011 08:36 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP > Cc : Softwires-wg > Objet : Re: RE : [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms > (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis) > > Hi Med, > I thought excluding well known ports is good idea because all nodes need > it. > Below you seem to agree that sharing them may be useless. > > Why is it service provider issue? It seems like address sharing changes the > basic characteristic of the port number space :-). > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:38 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > Excluding 0-4095 range is not justified in those documents. Excluding by > default this range may be considered by some service providers as waste of > ports. > > Excluding 0-1023 range may be understood by "port utilisation fairness" but > still be considered as an inefficiency if it is excluded by the algorithm and > not let to the taste of service providers to assign or not that range. > > Sharing the 0-1023 between several users may be useless (e.g. is valid > scenario to assign port 80 without port 443?). > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:behcetsarik...@yahoo.com] > Envoyé : vendredi 16 septembre 2011 17:02 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP > Cc : Softwires-wg > Objet : Re: RE : [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms > (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis) > > Hi Med, > > Another question: > On page 19, you have: > The limit of 0-4095 ports appears rather arbitrary and represents a > likely waste of ports, if not more that an operator may be interested > in utilizing. > > > > Why? Shouldn't they be excluded? > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
