IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [shara] port randomization (draft-ymbk-aplusp-03)

<Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com> Tue, 17 March 2009 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Gabor.Bajko@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 91F693A695A for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 1SpCQ2JcTToa for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90E73A6804 for <shara@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n2H18FI4001680; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:08:23 -0500
Received: from vaebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.23]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:08:14 +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); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:08:09 +0200
Received: from NOK-AM1MHUB-05.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.9) by NOK-am1MHUB-01.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:07:52 +0100
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by NOK-AM1MHUB-05.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.9]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:07:52 +0100
From: <Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com>
To: <dwing@cisco.com>, <jan@go6.si>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:07:55 +0100
Thread-Topic: [shara] port randomization (draft-ymbk-aplusp-03)
Thread-Index: Acmmke38FVeJqo9kTRyUVFJCg1VTDQAALvBQAAJw/qA=
Message-ID: <A99B171D26E1564B92D36826128CD66127EE106A92@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <022a01c9a2ab$fd5abf60$fd736b80@cisco.com><49B91C8B.5010906@go6.si><04a201c9a338$d5ce8f70$fd736b80@cisco.com> <49B9752B.8030407@go6.si> <051901c9a64a$0256bf40$fd55150a@cisco.com> <49BE9F0D.2080804@go6.si> <06e601c9a697$e6c67c90$fd55150a@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <06e601c9a697$e6c67c90$fd55150a@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2009 01:08:09.0928 (UTC) FILETIME=[D66BFC80:01C9A69C]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: shara@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [shara] port randomization (draft-ymbk-aplusp-03)
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: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:07:49 -0000

  >additional work is necessary to *release*
  >ports, so that the CPE can get a fresh port (or fresh block
  >of ports).

Isn't this the task of the protocol between the PRR and CPE? Wouldn't a lease time associated with each allocated port or port range be enough?

- gabor

  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
  >ext Dan Wing
  >Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 5:33 PM
  >To: 'Jan Zorz @ go6.si'
  >Cc: shara@ietf.org
  >Subject: Re: [shara] port randomization (draft-ymbk-aplusp-03)
  >
  >> 	And, the CPE does not necessarily need to request each port;
  >it
  >> 	could ask for ~5 or ~10 ports and then utilize them as it
  >needs,
  >> 	and then get another batch of ~10 ports.  It comes down to
  >> 	the design decisions for the protocol between the CPE and the
  >> 	PRR so that it is possible to utilize the entire 64K port
  >> 	range.
  >>
  >>
  >> Yes, this is possible within described mechanism in A+P
  >> proposal, as minimum port range is not limited, so you can
  >> define 10 ports as a range, but preferably a range, that can
  >> be described with a bitmask.
  >
  >I agree that allocating ports is discussed in Section 4.4
  >of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-aplusp-03; however,
  >my point is that additional work is necessary to *release*
  >ports, so that the CPE can get a fresh port (or fresh block
  >of ports).
  >
  >-d
  >
  >_______________________________________________
  >shara mailing list
  >shara@ietf.org
  >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email