Re: [shara] draft-thaler-port-restricted-ip-issues-00 - A+P tunneling

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Wed, 03 March 2010 22:07 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 4A3623A8CA4 for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:07:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.322
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.412, 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 8Hqu+oLb5wFW for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:07:39 -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 031A63A8CA1 for <shara@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:07:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 95685 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2010 23:12:23 -0000
Received: from softbank219001188004.bbtec.net (HELO necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp) (219.1.188.4) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 3 Mar 2010 23:12:23 -0000
Message-ID: <4B8EDD7F.1020203@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:06:55 +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: remi.despres@free.fr
References: <A7BE0643-692E-4C72-B811-1DFEF58F326F@free.fr> <4B8EBB3D.6090403@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <33B4D0C7-10F9-4D7C-8E02-74116564BE65@free.fr>
In-Reply-To: <33B4D0C7-10F9-4D7C-8E02-74116564BE65@free.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: shara@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [shara] draft-thaler-port-restricted-ip-issues-00 - A+P tunneling
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: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:07:40 -0000

Remi wrote:

> Indeed, if two hosts in a common domain in which they have have
> private IPv4 addresses in addition to their port-restricted
> public addresses, nothing prevents them from using any protocol
> between them with these private addresses (and ICMP in particular).

That's fine.

My point is that plain ICMP just works to/from a host with port
restricted public IPv4 addresses so that you don't have to say
anything about private addresses.

You (and A+P routers) can direct an ICMP echo request/reply packet
to an appropriate tunnel using identifier of echo request and
sequence number of echo reply as destination port number.

It is assumed that sequence number of echo request is restricted
as if it is a restricted source port number. Then, the sequence
number is copied by a destination end host to echo reply and
should act as a restricted destination port number of the reply.

For the restriction, ping command must be modified, but no ICMP
protocol change necessary.

						Masataka Ohta