On 2013/02/05, at 22:38, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: >> But there has been a firm requirement in the WG that, even for shared >> addresses, one of the CE could have the well-known ports. >> The WKPs-authorized option has been added to 4rd to satisfy this >> requirement. >> I don't think this requirement has disappeared. > > does anyone in the working group have an opinion on the well-known ports and > shared IPv4 addresses? > the options we have are: > > a) if well-known ports are required then a full IPv4 address must be assigned > b) allow that one user gets the well-known addresses, > but then the port block must at least be > 1024 ports. >
It is not clear to me is that whether a full IPv4 address is required or not even when a user just want a well-known port. > do we know that end users only need ports 0-1023 or 0-4095? need 22, but don't need 25, but need 53 and also need 80, etc., etc., of course it is not MAP use case at all. > or are the ports the require to be opened inbound across the range? > As far as I know, that kind of port is used to open inbound session. > I'm leaning towards a. > Is this as an item of out of scope of MAP? cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
