Re: [BEHAVE] REQ 1 and REQ 7 of RFC5382 were supposed to be fixed years ago

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Mon, 17 June 2013 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 0717921F9C9E for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 Sh2H3VUb0yG5 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05C1221F9CCB for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:3001:4012:84c5:867d:e648:8153]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D7F14040F for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51BF2333.2010700@viagenie.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:54:43 +0200
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: behave@ietf.org
References: <e652e4eda1b80ef8507455034552e0eb@cacaoweb.org>
In-Reply-To: <e652e4eda1b80ef8507455034552e0eb@cacaoweb.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] REQ 1 and REQ 7 of RFC5382 were supposed to be fixed years ago
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:54:48 -0000

Le 2013-06-17 15:15, ivan c a écrit :
> Back then, it was acknowledged that the most desirable behavior for a
> NAT to support TCP simultaneous open between 2 peers behind NATs was to
> have TCP port preservation.

I would argue that port preservation is useless for traversal.

> REQ 1 is a weaker condition that can be used
> by NAT that do not implement port preservation, but can use a third
> party server to perform port prediction.

I don't see how EIM can be used for port prediction.

> REQ 7 was supposed to be fixed too, as the condition it requires is way
> too strong as everyone can see. Port overloading for TCP is perfectly
> acceptable when the remote endpoints are distinct.

In your opinion, what is it about TCP that makes EDM OK?

> Use of the SO_REUSEADDR hack violates RFC793 and should be used with
> extra care.

Please explain.

Simon