Re: [shara] Questions about draft-boucadair-port-range-01
<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Thu, 26 February 2009 13:38 UTC
Return-Path: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: shara@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shara@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id CA6AF3A67F7 for <shara@core3.amsl.com>;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:38:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C3udSeEPpEyM for
<shara@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:38:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx06.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.233]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401213A69A8 for <shara@ietf.org>;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:38:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com
[10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP
id n1QDd3Wa021132; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:39:05 +0200
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by
vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:38:52 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com
over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:38:33 +0200
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.106]) by
nok-am1mhub-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) with mapi;
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:38:33 +0100
From: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
To: <denghui02@gmail.com>, <shara@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:37:59 +0100
Thread-Topic: [shara] Questions about draft-boucadair-port-range-01
Thread-Index: AcmYFO1O0oQeQMhqSwagQNTtGaYrygAATR3g
Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27E8A33BDD@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <1d38a3350902260519x22f0e37ay7b7d2831fcb2d325@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d38a3350902260519x22f0e37ay7b7d2831fcb2d325@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27E8A33BDDNOKEUMSG01mgd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2009 13:38:33.0737 (UTC)
FILETIME=[84DAC790:01C99817]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [shara] Questions about draft-boucadair-port-range-01
X-BeenThere: shara@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sharing of an IPv4 Address discussion list <shara.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara>,
<mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shara>
List-Post: <mailto:shara@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara>,
<mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:38:49 -0000
Hi,
Port restricted addresses certainly provide less functionality than full IPv4 addresses.
My understanding is that 1) would probably work as currently with private IPv4 addresses and NATs: node behind CPE finds out what its external IPv4 address+port is (STUN, UPnP, NAT-PMP) and communicates that by some means to correspondent node (e.g. with SIP & ICE).
2) Applications requiring ALG would suffer. However, if the port restricted address is handled by the host instead of CPE, the application itself could be capable of directly utilizing port restricted addresses and thus get possibility for NATless communication.
My personal opinion is that application developers should not longer assume existence of ALGs, especially when number of NATs that would need to implement ALG are growing increasingly - I believe (e.g. my phone has a third-party NAT (JoikuSpot) that I use when I need to share the HSDPA connection to my laptop via WLAN - I doubt it has very large set of ALGs implemented..).
Best regards,
Teemu
________________________________
From: shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Hui Deng
Sent: 26 February, 2009 15:20
To: shara@ietf.org
Subject: [shara] Questions about draft-boucadair-port-range-01
Dear authors,
After reading the draft, I have two questions:
1) This draft doesn't describe the DNS work, what happen if the correspondent node need
visit node behind the CPE?
2) Some application which couldn't be supported by ALG will not work in this scenarios?
thanks
-Hui
- [shara] Questions about draft-boucadair-port-rang… Hui Deng
- Re: [shara] Questions about draft-boucadair-port-… teemu.savolainen