Re: tsv-dir review of draft-ymbk-aplusp-08

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Pasi Sarolahti wrote:

My comments are as an implementer of a port restricted IP.

> * The typical initial scenario probably is that an A+P gateway
> is NATing the traffic to a legacy host in private address
> realm, but I understood that if a host/application supports
> A+P, it could use A+P addressing directly without NAT.

That's the proper way to use of port restricted IP with the
end to end transparency not unnecessarily combined with
legacy NAT.

> Have you thought how this would be reflected on the socket API?
> For example, what would be the intended behavior, if an
> application tries to bind a port that was not part of the port
> range assigned for the host?

It's like specifying a source address not belonging to the host.

So, a super user should be allowed to do so with raw IP.

> Apparently it is thought that there would be some extended API
> for an A+P-aware application to query which ports are
> available, right?

My implementation of PRIP has such mechanisms as ioctl.

						Masataka Ohta