I support (a). Not allowing the usage of the reserved port range 0-1023 is one less thing for an operator to worry about.
0-1023 range is good enough to be blocked. Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Ole Troan <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:38 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Section 5.1 of the MAP draft >> 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. > >do we know that end users only need ports 0-1023 or 0-4095? >or are the ports the require to be opened inbound across the range? > >I'm leaning towards a. > >cheers, >Ole >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
