IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [shara] [BEHAVE] TR: I-DAction:draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-00.txt

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 06 February 2009 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 96F413A6850; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:11:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Za0wLeNTrFfD; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC8F3A6827; Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rmac.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1LVJwL-000F52-Ij; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 06:11:49 +0000
Received: from rmac.psg.com.psg.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rmac.psg.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740502BF565; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 13:55:07 +0800 (HKT)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:55:07 +0800
Message-ID: <m2fxisyuro.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <E9CACA3D8417CE409FE3669AAE1E5A4F118EB4D7AF@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <6CF039C5B32037498B02251E11CDE6B007BB7096@ftrdmel3> <004e01c987e9$8b837df0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <m2hc38zcd3.wl%randy@psg.com> <E9CACA3D8417CE409FE3669AAE1E5A4F118EB4D7AF@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL/10.7 Emacs/22.3 (i386-apple-darwin9.6.0) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, "shara@ietf.org" <shara@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [shara] [BEHAVE] TR: I-DAction:draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option-00.txt
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: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 06:11:51 -0000

> Yes.  :)

they do?  when?

> I had the same feedback last IETF.
> This is the same thing all over again as a non-contiguous subnet mask,
> which the industry effectively got rid of as having too many problems
> in practice (but being fine in theory).
>> I like this draft overall, but I would restrict this so that only contiguous
>> port ranges are permitted.  Non-contiguous subnet masks are difficult for many
>> people to understand (even today) and I expect there would be similar
>> confusion with non-contiguous port ranges.
> do people have to understand these?

imiho, this is like ASDOT notation.  useless.

randy

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email