Tina,
Thanks for the comment.
First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known port
numbers should be mentioned.
I think that even if well know port is allocated as src address,
there would be no problem.
The document is aiming at "minimal" set of requirements to make CGN
transparent,
I agree with that this could be helpful
but I don't think this is a critical condition to make this I-D an RFC, isn't
it ?
Moreover if port numbers are allocated to each CPE, what is the criteria for
allocation.
I think that it's operators' choice :-)
<snip>
Some amount of clarity in this respect would be helpful.
I also think this kind of information is usuful, but
this could be discussed in other draft isn't it ?
Moreover, the document advocates the use of Endpoint independent filtering.
If AID is used, there would be a delay of 120 seconds for each port
reallocation. So should EIF be used only with those applications that canʼt
function without it, instead of applying it for all.
I see... Especially, Simon, how do you think ?
The need to maintain a record or database of the allocated ports and their
lifetime would be helpful.
For example, if port is statically assigned, there is no need to have
such record. So, again, I agree with that this is of course a clue to
operate CGN better in certain environment, but still is not a critical, I think.
So, how about we could create a document with such a hint for CGN operation
seprately then let this I-D move forward now ? > Tina
Best wishes,
Shin Miyakawa