Re: [BEHAVE] [sunset4] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07.txt> (Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)) to Best Current Practice

[Shin Miyakawa <[e-mail]>]

Tina,

Thanks for the comment. 

> First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known port numbers should be mentioned. 

I think that even if well know port is allocated as src address, 
there would be no problem. 
The document is aiming at "minimal" set of requirements to make CGN transparent, 
I agree with that this could be helpful 
but I don't think this is a critical condition to make this I-D an RFC, isn't it ?

> Moreover if port numbers are allocated to each CPE, what is the criteria for allocation. 

I think that it's operators' choice :-)

<snip>

> Some amount of clarity in this respect would be helpful.

I also think this kind of information is usuful, but 
this could be discussed in other draft isn't it ?

> Moreover, the document advocates the use of Endpoint independent filtering. If AID is used, there would be a delay of 120 seconds for each port reallocation. So should EIF be used only with those applications that can’t function without it, instead of applying it for all.

I see... Especially, Simon, how do you think ?

> 
> The need to maintain a record or database of the allocated ports and their lifetime would be helpful. 

For example, if port is statically assigned, there is no need to have 
such record. So, again, I agree with that this is of course a clue to 
operate CGN better in certain environment, but still is not a critical, I think.

So, how about we could create a document with such a hint for CGN operation 
seprately then let this I-D move forward now ? > Tina

Best wishes,

Shin Miyakawa