ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: tsv-dir review of draft-ymbk-aplusp-08

2011-02-08 03:17:17
Pasi Sarolahti wrote:

My comments are as an implementer of a port restricted IP.

* The typical initial scenario probably is that an A+P gateway
is NATing the traffic to a legacy host in private address
realm, but I understood that if a host/application supports
A+P, it could use A+P addressing directly without NAT.

That's the proper way to use of port restricted IP with the
end to end transparency not unnecessarily combined with
legacy NAT.

Have you thought how this would be reflected on the socket API?
For example, what would be the intended behavior, if an
application tries to bind a port that was not part of the port
range assigned for the host?

It's like specifying a source address not belonging to the host.

So, a super user should be allowed to do so with raw IP.

Apparently it is thought that there would be some extended API
for an A+P-aware application to query which ports are
available, right?

My implementation of PRIP has such mechanisms as ioctl.

                                                Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>