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

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your reaction.
Comments below.
`RD

[e-mail]  -  le (m/j/a) 2/6/09 11:27 AM:
> If no need is identified for more complex solutions than dynamic-ports only, I then propose to amend the document so that parameters are simplified, e.g. but not necessarily to become:
>    Port Prefix Length (6 in the above example).
>    Port Prefix Value (11EEEE0000000000 in the above example).
> [Med] I need to think about that a little bit more. 
>   
I do hope we can converge on something.

Note that dynamic-ports only is not per se incompatible with some sort 
of cryptographic mechanism  (like the one you are proposing with Gabor 
and Teemu).
Of course only bits 2 to 15 of a dynamic port could be concerned with 
cryptography.
> [Med] I think assigning the overall well known port range to a single user is not **fair**, IMO means to distributed these values should be encouraged. And again, this is naturally supported by our proposal. The values to be carried in an IPCP conf message is out of scope. SP are free to assign the Port Masks they want!
Note that in my proposal, NO user gets well-known ports as a way to 
extend its IPv4 address (no unfairness then).