> doing here). As such, the ability to assign or not that port range should be > left to each SP and not excluded by default.
+1. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 1:54 AM > To: sarik...@ieee.org > Cc: Softwires-wg > Subject: Re: [Softwires] RE : Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd- > softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis) > > 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. > * 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
