Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
Right, yes, I didn't see it from that standpoint. However UPnP
can of course be substituted by NAT-PMP/PCP or something else
that doesn't have the same discovery problem, and ISP-level NATs
will no longer be a "Problem" for clients needing incoming
connections even though they can no longer be said to be "Public".
Right.
For example, an ISP, today, can tell its client public IP addresses
assigned to the client. Then, the client can configure them by hand.
There is no discovery problem.
Just like that, an ISP can tell its client a public IP address and
public port numbers of the address assigned to the client. Then, the
client can configure them by hand.
Or, it is trivially easy to add DHCP/PP option so that ISPs can
automatically tell their clients the address/port information for
each client.
If port allocation is more dynamic involving gateway-client
communication, there should be a DHCP/PPP option to tell client
the IP address (and port) of a gateway for the gateway-client
communication.
Of course we're assuming that clients are in direct contact with
their gateway here, I'm not sure how true that is, there may need
to be added proxying to replicate requests otherwise. It certainly
isn't impossible to do.
Sure. What is necessary is clear documentation of DHCP/PPP
extensions and gateway-client protocols.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf