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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf