Re: [BEHAVE] NAPGT request for comments, THANKS!

Hi Reinaldo,
  So I suppose <1-1024> might be used as NAT, <1025-65535> might be used 
as 
dynamic NAPT.
  That is what this view says in the draft.

Cheers,
Wei

behave-bounces@ietf.org 2013-07-17 09:52:34:

> I'm not sure this is a good idea. There are still some protocols 
> around that use ports < 1024 and maintaining the source port after 
> translation in this range is important. 
> 
> From: behave-bounces@ietf.org [behave-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of
> Dan Wing (dwing)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:30 PM
> To: meng.wei2@zte.com.cn
> Cc: behave@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] NAPGT request for comments, THANKS!

> 
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 2:43 AM, meng.wei2@zte.com.cn wrote:
> 
>     I have submitted a new draft. The objective is to solve a problem 
that 
>     prevents an external client from accessing an internal server. 
> 
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-meng-behave-napgt/ 
> 
>     I expect your comments. Thanks a lot! 
> 
> Draft-meng-behave-napgt appears to describe something that is very 
> similar to the long-standing "DMZ host" configuration available on 
> almost all residential-class NAT devices.  I don't think we could 
> standardize that behavior, but perhaps that is possible. 
> 
> Draft-meng-behave-napgt also describes an update to the port 
> assignment behavior described in http://tools.ietf.
> org/html/rfc5382#section-7.1 (TCP) and http://tools.ietf.
> org/html/rfc4787#section-4.2.1 (UDP).  If I understand Section 4 of 
> draft-meng-behave-napgt properly, it is saying that NATs should not 
> assign ports below 1024 to dynamic connections.  This might be 
> something worth considering for draft-ietf-behave-requirements-update? 
> 
> -d
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave