2013/2/5 Ole Troan <[email protected]> > > 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. >
(a) is comfortable. i do think that, when MAP is used for non-shared IPv4 addresses, either public or private, well-known ports are surely available with the exclusively used IPv4 addresses to enable server-side applications. such a demand exists. the idea is as the same as (a). (b) is acceptable with the condition that the port set size > 1024. well-known port usage for the shared IPv4 address is somehow tricky as it, philosophically, doesn't fit some considerations when we design the MAP architecture. e.g., well-known ports are well-known while the A+P framework incline to assign non-contiguous port numbers for a host for some reasons like privacy/security. on the other hand, the port set size > 1024 condition may restrict the operation so that PSID length, offset, ea-bit length cannot be selected arbitrarily according to the regular MAP deployment logic. - maoke > 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
