Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 19 June 2013 08:13 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 252DE21F9F46 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:13:17 -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 dREuKFmEd9dT for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429C221F99A0 for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:3001:4012:84c5:867d:e648:8153]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6DCAB403D3 for <behave@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:13:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51C1681A.5030909@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:13:14 +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: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02325A6E93@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> <2f7dce8264c8a9a72640629502a44295@cacaoweb.org>
In-Reply-To: <2f7dce8264c8a9a72640629502a44295@cacaoweb.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)
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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:13:17 -0000

Le 2013-06-18 22:33, ivan c a écrit :
> The discussion here is not about UDP. UDP port preservation should
> generally not be implemented by NATs, as it could generate conflicts when 2
> internal hosts using the same local port, each with a session to the same
> endpoint. This would break end-to-end connectivity in rare cases, as there
> is no fallback mechanism (as opposed to TCP).

Please explain how TCP is not subject to the same problem.

Simon