Re: [Softwires] WGLC review of draft-ietf-softwire-map

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

Ole,

Only replying to this part, which I think is important. The rest is fine.

Le 2014-01-15 07:14, Ole Troan a écrit :
>>>>>    A MAP CE receiving an IPv6 packet to its MAP IPv6 address sends this
>>>>>    packet to the CE's MAP function where it is decapsulated.  All other
>>>>>    IPv6 traffic is forwarded as per the CE's IPv6 routing rules.  The
>>>>>    resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE's NAT44 function
>>>>>    where the destination port number MUST be checked against the
>>>>>    stateful port mapping session table and the destination port number
>>>>>    MUST be mapped to its original value.
>>>>
>>>> The previous sentence should be reworded to allow static port forwarding.
>>>
>>> hmm, what do you mean by static port forwarding?
>>
>> For example, the user goes to the CPE's admin web interface and configures a mapping from external port 80 to internal host port 80. That's a static mapping that needs to be taken into account by the NAT function. The MUSTs above don't seem to allow the necessary wiggle room.
>
> correct. you cannot do that with A+P. the user looses control of the ports.

I don't see why.

Do we agree that PCP can be used with MAP to manipulate a CPE's mappings?

The fact that the CPE only has access to a limited external port set is 
of no consequence. You still have a NAT, and we need to make sure its 
mappings can be manipulated by the user.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca