IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 13 February 2013 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AA121F886E for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:00:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VfG0rfk225Bx for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com (mail-lb0-f180.google.com [209.85.217.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E0A21F8888 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:00:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q12so1089637lbc.39 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:00:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=K5CcV982Jx2bQzTV7bIJ1wt0yxdRtvZtmUsv6vEZY54=; b=oXXJ7CO0tUoIqGjM2YIUPi0nonCwSAdR9aAo3/WRGJBgQZokBdEil1D0PGAb/ixLI/ uM+4X5pgOBUnGQ75OeQ+v9nnIHymKhzkdkBIHCVmfsAzUfH9z5s4KmJZMHwRvQboj5w5 wxWl21uAN01EQfg+wo/rAfNOQDilJY/oETVGavz9I1gfGZ+lATX0TLq4J6tTf5UyaUe/ Doki9GJLHx1GOG1HeEtU1B/mXfEETjKYIhaYILOQotO7/DBmZWzzewnwvPJFPnMISur0 /pdD/62DSDg/daAVqrtxNgRkLGWkRofZlgBGIQtCZ2XC/LQyKnmrQmhO9v8GdOav5fvy NIug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.16.102 with SMTP id f6mr9104119lbd.3.1360774830340; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.28.168 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:00:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EAFB56426@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <51195E93.4090103@innovationslab.net> <51198814.1060809@ericsson.com> <CAC8QAcc_r3U5GqTp=yBp4K0JOvSh2i2fWxVm=5rQHc-gqxcwCw@mail.gmail.com> <511B393A.7080709@ericsson.com> <CAC8QAceQo5-8p7aBR=AuNKZeCaensP880qAbAmS86HO6eK8b5g@mail.gmail.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36EAFB56426@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:00:30 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAceY0M2iv974zaj9_xBouFaN8q1wf+ecXy3zAZfG98EqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0401fd0f61ba5704d59e1411"
Cc: "draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis@tools.ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/int-area>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:00:41 -0000

Hi Med,

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> **
> Hi Behcet,
>
> I have two comments:
>
> * Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism.
>

I am not sure on A+P?
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?

Regards,

Behcet

>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email