Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation and CGNs
ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org> Tue, 02 July 2013 18:23 UTC
Return-Path: <ivan@cacaoweb.org>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFF921F9BD3 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Oj6Lt4QUiiR for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cacaoweb.org (mail.cacaoweb.org [46.105.102.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B027221F9BB7 for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www-data by mail.cacaoweb.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ivan@cacaoweb.org>) id 1Uu5Fm-00011I-D6; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:24:38 +0200
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 20:24:38 +0200
From: ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org>
Organization: cacaoweb
In-Reply-To: <51CAA325.8080201@viagenie.ca>
References: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02325AA8EE@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> <9637befefe07c43417c758a004e03f3c@cacaoweb.org> <51C4053D.5050703@viagenie.ca> <b863f14098e41ecbb3fe4ca56641d053@cacaoweb.org> <51CAA325.8080201@viagenie.ca>
Message-ID: <d83e9f8fe5450d3af0afdc36a253ce8b@cacaoweb.org>
X-Sender: ivan@cacaoweb.org
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
Cc: Behave <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation and CGNs
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ivan@cacaoweb.org
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:23:45 -0000
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:15:33 +0200, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote: > Le 2013-06-25 19:20, ivan c a écrit : >>> Some NATs don't implement EDM and thus cannot switch to it. >>> >> >> By definition, all NATs are "EDM". > > Please explain. > >> "Endpoint-dependent Mapping" really means "Address and port-dependent >> Mapping". This is the most general case of NAT, where no requirement is >> made on the type of mapping. For instance, "EIM" is a particular case of >> this general case. > > I don't understand how this could be true. "Endpoint-dependent Mapping" definition is that mappings with the same internal endpoint may be assigned to different external endpoints. It is verified for all NATs. > >> Maybe we should use the term APDM instead of EDM for the sake of clarity, >> but the best is probably to avoid using the "EDM" acronym altogether if >> it >> leads to confusion. > > EDM is defined in RFC 6887. Let's keep using already-defined terminology > if it fits. If it doesn't confuse anyone, I have no problem using it. See above. Although new acronyms in general are best avoided since they require readers to learn new acronyms for no particular reason. > >> Instead, we can use the term "no particular >> requirement >> on the mapping scheme" or something similar. This way, people new to the >> discussion can understand the point immediately and we also avoid the use >> of new obscure acronyms. > > EIM and EDM are not requirements. They are qualifiers of NAT behaviour. Nope, "Endpoint-Independent Mapping" can be a requirement, for example REQ 1. of RFC 4787. > >> Again, the goal here should be to suggest options for NAT to behave in >> p2p >> friendly ways. Some useful optional features for CGNs, like port >> overloading, do have minor caveats that should be detailed in the >> document, >> and they also don't apply to "3-tuple" NATs as you mentioned. >> This is the best way in my opinion to write a Best Current Practices >> document. > > I would simply like to first understand technically what you're proposing. Sounds great. > > Simon -- _Ivan Chollet_
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Dan Wing
- [BEHAVE] REQ 1 and REQ 7 of RFC5382 were supposed… ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] REQ 1 and REQ 7 of RFC5382 were supp… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] REQ 1 and REQ 7 of RFC5382 were supp… ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] REQ 1 and REQ 7 of RFC5382 were supp… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] REQ 1 and REQ 7 of RFC5382 were supp… Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)
- Re: [BEHAVE] REQ 1 and REQ 7 of RFC5382 were supp… ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Dan Wing
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation a… ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation a… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation a… ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation a… Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) cb.list6
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ietfdbh
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Tom Taylor
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject) Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading Simon Perreault
- [BEHAVE] UDP socket programming Simon Perreault
- Re: [BEHAVE] TCP port overloading, preservation a… ivan c
- Re: [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading ivan c