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
