Port-wise routing and NAT
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 24 July 2009 15:31 UTC
Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09FF3A6A10 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.042
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZSf70Yyt0vM for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9702A3A6778 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 81873 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2009 17:14:45 -0000
Received: from softbank219001188006.bbtec.net (HELO necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp) (219.1.188.6) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 24 Jul 2009 17:14:45 -0000
Message-ID: <4A69D320.9020901@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:28:32 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja-JP; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: ja, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Port-wise routing and NAT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:31:23 -0000
Dear All; After finishing to design end to end NAT (draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00.txt), I have noticed several people working on similar idea differently using portwise routing (draft-boucadair-port-range-*, draft-ymbk-aplusp-*). So, here is my comments. 1) Having IPv4 network, where port numbers also affect routing, is equivalent to end to end NAT, though port-wise routing is more obviously end to end. Thus, most arguments in draft-ohta-e2e-nat-00.txt should be applicable to port-wise routing. End to end NAT, on the other hand, can naturally be upward compatible to legacy NAT. 2) Though port-wise routing is not NAT, proposals seems to assume CPE or some box near CPE is legacy NAT, only to loss end to end transparency. CPE should better be end to end NAT. 3) Though proposals suggest tunneling, address translation of end to end NAT is enough for redirection without affecting MTU. Masataka Ohta
- Port-wise routing and NAT Masataka Ohta