Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>   Thanks for the review. I wanted to clarify three points that you
> raised and I will ask the authors take care of the rest.
>
> On 02/11/2013 04:11 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > 7. In Section 4.1.2, it would be good to describe any issues that the
> > approach has with the original use of the Identification field for
> > fragmentation reassembly.  If a middlebox changes the ID field, weird
> > things can/will happen if those packets are fragmented somewhere.
>
> Agree. I think this is precisely the reason that the mechanism for
> putting the HOST_ID in the IP-ID is a non-starter.
>
> > 11. Is Section 4.6 theoretical or is there a specific reference that can
> > be added for this technique?
>
> There are several mechanisms that use port sets for IPv4 address
> sharing. A+P (RFC6346) is one such mechanism.
>
> Section 4.6 is not about about A+P. In A+P there is also the use of a
shared public IPv4 address.
I think that Section 4.6 refers to the port range solution for an RG with
NAT once suggested in BBF.


Regards,

Behcet