IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netconf] UDP default port

Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr> Thu, 17 October 2024 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83DFC15152E; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_HELO_IP_MISMATCH=2.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=insa-lyon.fr
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n7DNs-rLnmYb; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout02-ext4.partage.renater.fr (smtpout02-ext4.partage.renater.fr [194.254.241.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB6D5C14F739; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr (zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr [194.254.241.26]) by smtpout20.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47459C175E; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:46:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 305761C0A2B; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:46:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C791C0A37; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:46:58 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr 18C791C0A37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=insa-lyon.fr; s=CB289C06-95B8-49FE-9C4B-D197C6D2E7CB; t=1729183618; bh=6sQ/yBWVCJyvGbUs30V0voPOYYJokq7ZhINtOZTC82k=; h=From:Mime-Version:Message-Id:Date:To; b=orv+Mcfkd48pk4w7Gql88Kxhye53jIcKcjHGwOn23ZlTsSNEJeiocyJPMCjAtmfb2 XtbjYcP7H3+2/wgeGwkRBHRvb3gArjv1Uoymt5s8SF458flTFCaZo5MsQqX9YzPvA6 i9lphXrgAXvvKV/OAk/h0qcBgYf7pO+6+fagaKaMekopbtTcKGJ3HmjVbywDoBFPsT Dg6TG3/Rc9Bxl6009gCOtiWqBTd4ZvQLNrL7x81F3g0emqmHc8KIYcAo/a5Mq9QNW7 rFTpUV0ePxzYJen4LoddbSaGiXhZ7yRnfE9pnfyFZUKoptbo56xxkY9KM/Q+fnpRxv w8xcWotORBkug==
Received: from zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10026) with ESMTP id ioI0UEu8RWmt; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:46:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 176.146.148.215 (unknown [194.254.241.249]) by zmtaauth04.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D1E991C0A2B; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:46:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_901D19BD-3A14-4337-B60F-574E7EC732CB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51.11.1\))
Message-Id: <2EBB4D35-4D0A-4123-AE45-0D0C6B549E48@insa-lyon.fr>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:46:47 +0200
To: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51.11.1)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.8 at clamav03
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamState: clean
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamScore: -100
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamCause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdehuddguddtjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucftgffptefvgfftnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhtggguffkffevvffosegrtdhmrehhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhgvgicujfhurghnghcuhfgvnhhguceorghlvgigrdhhuhgrnhhgqdhfvghnghesihhnshgrqdhlhihonhdrfhhrqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeffhfehvdehgfehtdejiefhueeutdetleefueeufeevgfduvdfhteeihffhgfetheenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecukfhppeduleegrddvheegrddvgedurddvgeelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepudelgedrvdehgedrvdeguddrvdegledphhgvlhhopedujeeirddugeeirddugeekrddvudehpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlvgigrdhhuhgrnhhgqdhfvghnghesihhnshgrqdhlhihonhdrfhhrpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeegpdhrtghpthhtohepthhsvhdqrghrthesihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepphhivghrrhgvrdhfrhgrnhgtohhishesihhnshgrqdhlhihonhdrfhhrpdhrtghpthhtohepvfhhohhmrghsrdfirhgrfhesshifihhsshgtohhmrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepnhgvthgtohhnfhesihgvthhfrdhorhhg
Message-ID-Hash: 3SNVVQJIRJ4KTDVD5IMMOONS7PSCVR6Y
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3SNVVQJIRJ4KTDVD5IMMOONS7PSCVR6Y
X-MailFrom: alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Pierre Francois <pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>, "Thomas. Graf" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] UDP default port
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KFhUZVaccXq6pOFIfzKgWx04VjI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>

Dear Transport Area,

The NETCONF WG suggested to contact designated experts for the default UDP port assignment.

The question is whether UDP-notif (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif/) need to define a default port or not.
The draft had an early review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-11-tsvart-early-tuexen-2023-11-15/ where the default port was not raised.

The current understanding is that:
-  Reading https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7605#section-7.1 UDP-notif can be configured in both endpoints, and anyway the configuration of the IP address is needed before sending messages.
- Reading https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6335#section-7.2, given that port allocations are limited ressources, these assignments should be avoided when possible.
- From discussions on the ML (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9x_w3aI70Cw1oNJP4JH8h181cbI/) so far, current network telemetry protocols do not require a default port.

So, from these references UDP-notif does not have the requirements for a default port. Is this correct?

Regards,
Alex

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status