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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

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]>> 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.

Thanks
Suresh