Re: [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Fri, 28 June 2013 12:03 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 5E8AD21F894E for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, 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 H2J7-LJXnjJA for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6615221F9CF7 for <behave@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:2001::1000]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8B5A4042D; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:03:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51CD7B7A.8000604@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:03:06 +0200
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02325A6E93@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> <2f7dce8264c8a9a72640629502a44295@cacaoweb.org> <51C1681A.5030909@viagenie.ca> <f8741fad1af1cee094de9c59408b7425@cacaoweb.org> <51C40374.8080403@viagenie.ca> <21e25b7ae1501228a67656b2fa4bc009@cacaoweb.org> <51CAA20F.4070307@viagenie.ca> <7f35bf30538732e3953bd33bcab7a791@cacaoweb.org> <51CC444C.1030507@viagenie.ca> <20130627141434.3B0BD365EA62@drugs.dv.isc.org> <51CC4A59.8080801@viagenie.ca> <20130627143612.51ECB365ED5A@drugs.dv.isc.org> <51CC50AE.2080909@viagenie.ca> <20130627221133.4FBF936609FC@drugs.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130627221133.4FBF936609FC@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: behave@ietf.org, ivan@cacaoweb.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:03:13 -0000

Le 2013-06-28 00:11, Mark Andrews a écrit :
>> Right, but, port overloading is not what kills the randomization done by
>> the DNS client. Non-port preserving NAT is what kills it.
>
> Deterministic (e.g. sequential) port assignment kills it.  Port
> overloading kills it if not done sensibly.

Sure, but isn't all that already covered by RFC 6056?

That is, does anything still need to be said about this?

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca