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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

I think that email discussions we had on this issue in fmc list last year
will provide good context in these discussions, please remember them.

See inline:

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:16 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> **
> Re-,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>  ------------------------------
> *De :* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 13 février 2013 18:01
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
> *Cc :* Suresh Krishnan; Brian Haberman;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>
> *Objet :* Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation:
> draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
>
> Hi Med,
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> **
>> Hi Behcet,
>>
>> I have two comments:
>>
>> * Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism.
>>
>
> I am not sure on A+P?
> [Med] both A+P and NAT-based address sharing solutions are covered by
> rfc6269. host identifier is just a means to distinguish hosts under the
> same IP address. It does not matter how address sharing is implemented.
>
> A+P requires point-to-point link, right?
>
>>  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.
>>
>>
> Again, I am not sure if Section 4.6 describes what A+P says?
> [Med] That section says non overlapping port sets are assigned to hosts
> sharing the same IP address. The text does not describe if the shared
> address is also configured to those hosts or if there is a NAT in the host,
> etc. These are implementation variants. There is no value to provide such
> details in that section. Adding a ref to A+P is just fair. This does not
> preclude other contexts.
>
>
If Section 4.6 applies to A+P, there is no need for such a text, just say
Use A+P and give the reference, right?

Regards,

Behcet