Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)

ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org> Thu, 27 June 2013 13:43 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 5758E21F9D89 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, 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 JxiVtp5OBPAV for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cacaoweb.org (mail.cacaoweb.org [46.105.102.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C5A21F9D87 for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www-data by mail.cacaoweb.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ivan@cacaoweb.org>) id 1UsCUW-0006zj-9O; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:44:04 +0200
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:44:04 +0200
From: ivan c <ivan@cacaoweb.org>
Organization: cacaoweb
In-Reply-To: <51CAA20F.4070307@viagenie.ca>
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>
Message-ID: <7f35bf30538732e3953bd33bcab7a791@cacaoweb.org>
X-Sender: ivan@cacaoweb.org
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3.1
Cc: 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:43:12 -0000

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:10:55 +0200, Simon Perreault
<simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:
> I still haven't seen any explanation why the following excerpts do not 
> apply.
> 
> RFC 4787:
> 
>     REQ-3:  A NAT MUST NOT have a "Port assignment" behavior of "Port
>        overloading".
> 
> RFC 5382:
> 
>     REQ-7:  A NAT MUST NOT have a "Port assignment" behavior of "Port
>        overloading" for TCP.
> 
> Simon


Because some NATs would like to do port overloading, which is in
contradiction with these requirements. See section 4. of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-requirements-update-00 .
You're mentioned as an author on this draft by the way.
In this post I explain why port overloading can be somewhat desirable:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg10896.html
I make the same point across a large number of my posts.



-- 
_Ivan Chollet_