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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Suresh Krishnan <
[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]>>
> 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
>
>