Re: [shara] draft-thaler-port-restricted-ip-issues: IP Model Issues

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 01 March 2010 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 5B6FA3A7AF3 for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:48:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 zK5Ej+p7LY1j for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C78A3A6922 for <shara@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 04:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 14873 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2010 13:52:36 -0000
Received: from softbank219001188004.bbtec.net (HELO necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp) (219.1.188.4) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 1 Mar 2010 13:52:36 -0000
Message-ID: <4B8BB775.80608@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:47:49 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja-JP; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: ja, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
References: <4101_1267438405_4B8B9345_4101_11992_1_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F30EFAFF52D5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4101_1267438405_4B8B9345_4101_11992_1_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F30EFAFF52D5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "shara@ietf.org" <shara@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [shara] draft-thaler-port-restricted-ip-issues: IP Model Issues
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: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:48:24 -0000

mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:

> You wrote in your draft: "A "unicast address" is defined (e.g., in 
> [RFC4291]) as an identifier
>    for a single interface.  A packet sent to a unicast address is
>    delivered to the interface identified by that address.  Many
>    protocols, including ARP [RFC0826] [RFC5227] rely on this fact.

It merely means ARP, not many protocols, does not work with PR-IP.

Instead, the reality is that all the other protocols just work.

Moreover, none of the PR-IP proposals depends on plain ARP on
shared addresses, including, but not limited to, E2ENAT.

So?

>    Creating a port-restricted unicast IP address would require a change
>    to the above definition so that it could be assigned to multiple
>    interfaces (on different hosts) within the address's scope." 

It merely means PR-IP does require host stack changes.

All of the PR-IP proposals do require host stack changes. So?

> Note that the shared IPv4 address is not used as an ** Identifier **
> but as a ** Locator **

That's totally irrelevant.

The point of PR-IP is simply that PR-IP requires host stack changes
including, but not limited to, on ARP behaviour.

						Masataka Ohta