On 28 Mar 2017, at 21:56, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Peter van Dijk
<peter.van.d...@powerdns.com> wrote:
Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing
the port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon
prove quite important.
Can you elaborate?
Both drafts (xpf and clientid) allow the resolver to identify the client
even if the IP header does not provide enough information for it. xpf
does this for the case of a generic proxy, clientid does it for that
case plus the case of a CPE that does NAT but can pass on the client’s
MAC or another token, allowing the resolver to identify the individual
device at the customer.
However, if the client to such a proxy is itself behind a CGN gateway,
we may need both client IP + port number to identify the specific
client. If the proxy only tells us the IP, we just know this might be
any of a hundred different clients, because we do not have the port
number that can help us distinguish these clients.
Kind regards,
--
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
