IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] SCTP NAT support, draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg-00

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 22 January 2010 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8251B3A67AD for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:02:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.411, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 C43H4TgXjsWp for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFF83A67B7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar0FACSWWEurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACIKoEUuX2WMIQ8BA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,322,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="137900781"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2010 02:02:19 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0M22Il8004471; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:02:18 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg@tools.ietf.org
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:02:18 -0800
Message-ID: <01c301ca9b06$ed2ba510$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-Index: AcqbBuztfz9ACdplTfu6hFKNIdj8pw==
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: [tsvwg] SCTP NAT support, draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg-00
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:02:23 -0000

Section 6: an SCTP client cannot determine if there is an SCTP-aware NAT 
between itself and the SCTP server.  That means an SCTP client always needs
to include the DISABLE_RESTART parameter.  I assume that has undesirable
side-effects, yes?  If so, perhaps a different design would be better,
such as having the SCTP server notice the port collision and send back an 
error, which causes the client to either (a) re-send an INIT with the 
DISABLE_RESTART parameter or (b) choose a different source port number 
and send a new INIT without the DISABLE_RESTART parameter.

Nit:  draft-stewart-natsupp-tsvwg updates RFC4960 and should say that
is the intent on the first page header ("Updates: 4960 (if approved)").

-d

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status