Good point, Woj. What I described was indeed the default behavior. -- Cheers, Rajiv Asati Distinguished Engineer, Cisco
-----Original Message----- From: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, November 14, 2013 4:48 AM To: Rajiv Asati <[email protected]> Cc: Kristian Poscic <[email protected]>, Softwires-wg list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] port-forwards in MAP >Well, never say "never" :-) MAP allows via the a-bits/offset-bits setting >the range of "excluded ports" in a domain > > to be configured. Thus, while not set so as a default, ports <1024 can >also be used. > > >There is naturally the non-address-shared mode of MAP to consider (i.e. >when PSID length =0). Here each MAP user has a full IPv4 address and of >course also the corresponding full port range. > > >Cheers, > >Wojciech > > > >On 13 November 2013 19:12, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) ><[email protected]> wrote: > >Hi Kristian, > >Yes, that's correct. > >-- >Cheers, >Rajiv > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: <Poscic>, Kristian Poscic <[email protected]> >Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 6:31 PM >To: Softwires-wg list <[email protected]> >Subject: [Softwires] port-forwards in MAP > >>Just wanted to confirm one thing for MAP-E in regards to static port >>forwards. >> >>Can it be assumed that excluded port-range (0-1023 and possibly more >>depending on the offset) will never be used in MAP? The port forwards >>will be allocated on the CPE in statefull NAT44 and the ports will be >>allocated according to the >> delegated PSID and not from the MAP excluded range (well-known ports for >>example). >>Thanks. >> >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
