Simon, >> yes, apologies being sloppy there. you can use PCP. >> it may be of limited use, e.g. if your web server is trying to use PCP to >> open port 80. > > Yes of course. I'm more concerned about modern apps that don't rely on > well-known ports. > > My point, concretely, is that the MUSTs above seem to preclude user > manipulation of the NAT mappings. I would suggest instead: > > A MAP CE receiving an IPv6 packet to its MAP IPv6 address sends this > packet to the CE's MAP function where it is decapsulated. All other > IPv6 traffic is forwarded as per the CE's IPv6 routing rules. The > resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE's NAT44 function, > where it is handled according to the NAT's state.
agree, MAP should treat the NAT as a black box. apart from that it must be port range aware. cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
