Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)

ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org> Fri, 21 June 2013 17:15 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 41D9A21F9FA6 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, 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 v+KhBY1tS3Lq for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cacaoweb.org (mail.cacaoweb.org [46.105.102.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D3F21F9F91 for <behave@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www-data by mail.cacaoweb.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ivan@cacaoweb.org>) id 1Uq4w1-0007k9-R9; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:15:41 +0200
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:15:41 +0200
From: ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org>
Organization: cacaoweb
In-Reply-To: <80BFC9AE-2ADD-4F5D-9229-FBD6B0E403F3@cisco.com>
References: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02325AA8EE@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> <80BFC9AE-2ADD-4F5D-9229-FBD6B0E403F3@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b118ce9ffff60fc4d3e85dfcc4c7d8c9@cacaoweb.org>
X-Sender: ivan@cacaoweb.org
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
Cc: Behave <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:15:05 -0000

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:25:14 -0700, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> This discussion should continue, even if to repeat the arguments that
were
> made years ago when the port overloading text was the WG's consensus. 
If
> WG consensus has changed, let's change the updated document.  But we do
> need a careful analysis and discussion of the impact of such a change to
> applications and to NATs.
> 

Applications are not impacted. Port overloading is a transparent NAT-only
behavior that preserves that 5-tuple uniqueness.

As for NATs, they should be free to do port overloading if they wish. It's
not reasonable to force them into one behavior or the other, since none
affect interoperability.



-- 
_Ivan Chollet_