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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 15. Section 5
> 
> * Shouldn't there be an additional metric that covers the impact/cost of
> needing client or middlebox code changes?
> 
> * Where did the 100% success ratio for IP-ID come from?  There have been
> documented cases of OSes setting the Identification field to zero.  If
> that is true, the success ratio can't be 100% can it?

This technique involves the translator (and not the sender) setting the
IP-ID field. That is why it can still work with OSes on senders setting
the IP-ID to zero.

Thanks
Suresh