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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet,

I have two comments:

* Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism. This is why the introduction mentions already the following:

   As reported in [RFC6269<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6269>], several issues are encountered when an IP
   address is shared among several subscribers.  These issues are
   encountered in various deployment contexts: e.g., Carrier Grade NAT
   (CGN), application proxies or A+P [RFC6346<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6346>].

* RFC6346 is provided as an example of a solution making use of port sets. You are right, other solutions (than a+p) can be considered but having one pointer to a solution example is just fair. No need to be exhaustive here.

Cheers,
Med
________________________________
De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[e-mail]]
Envoyé : mercredi 13 février 2013 17:36
À : Suresh Krishnan
Cc : Brian Haberman; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis

Hi Suresh,

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Behcet,

On 02/12/2013 05:57 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Suresh,
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[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.

Right. But section 4.6 is about assigning port sets and Brian asked if
that was any specific mechanisms that assigned port sets. A+P does so.
Not sure about what you mean by "In A+P there is also the use of a
shared public IPv4 address". This is the reason why we need a HOST_ID at
all.


I think that this draft is not about A+P (don't ask me why, ask Med :-) ).
The correct reference for Section 4.6 would be BBF document WT-146 on Subscriber Sessions


Regards,

Behcet
Thanks
Suresh