Dear SM,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : SM [mailto:s...@resistor.net]
Envoyé : mercredi 1 août 2012 00:15
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : int-area@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [Int-area] Comments on
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02
Hi Med,
At 01:17
Dear Wes,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : int-area-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Wesley Eddy
Envoyé : mardi 10 juillet 2012 01:26
À : Tina TSOU
Cc : int-area@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Int-area] Comments on
draft-ietf-intarea-nat
Hi Mohamed,
On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:30 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
But aside from that, I disagree with you on purpose of whatever is
being attempted here. The document is about identifying hosts, and
you mention users. These are not the same thing. Which do you want
to
Dear SM,
Apologies for the delay to answer.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : int-area-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de SM
Envoyé : samedi 7 juillet 2012 10:41
À : int-area@ietf.org
Objet : [Int-area] Comments on
draft-ietf
: BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Hannes Tschofenig; Wesley Eddy; Tina TSOU; int-area@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Int-area] Comments on
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02
Hi Mohamed,
On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:30 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
But aside from that, I disagree
: BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Hannes Tschofenig; Wesley Eddy; Tina TSOU; int-area@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Int-area] Comments on
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02
Hi Mohamed,
On Jul 26, 2012, at 10:30 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
But aside from that, I disagree
Objet : Re: [Int-area] Comments on
draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02
Hi Mohamed,
I know that RFC 6269 just tries to identify what the authors
consider as broken in real world deployments. The analysis in
that document is, however, used as a justification for doing
the work on draft
On Jul 10, 2012, at 1:26, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 7/9/2012 4:41 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
The TCP option is another good way to include the HOST ID in case of TCP
and UDP communications.
Surely there's a typo there, since it does not work at all in the
case of UDP.
I disagree with the overall
On Jul 10, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On Jul 10, 2012, at 1:26, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 7/9/2012 4:41 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
The TCP option is another good way to include the HOST ID in case of TCP
and UDP communications.
Surely there's a typo there, since it does not work at all
I read the document and came to rather different conclusions (see
below):
On 7/9/2012 4:41 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
I reviewed this draft and I found it very detailed about the various
ways of including a HOST ID. Considering the number of users that share
the same IPv4 address, there is an
Hello,
I have a few comments on draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02.
In Section 1.1:
Examples of such issues are listed below:
Redirect users with infected machines to a dedicated portal
Why is this an issue?
The risk of not mitigating these issues are: OPEX increase for IP
I
11 matches
Mail list logo
