Hi Behcet, On 02/12/2013 05:57 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan > <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com <mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com>> wrote: > > Hi Brian, > Thanks for the review. I wanted to clarify three points that you > raised and I will ask the authors take care of the rest. > > On 02/11/2013 04:11 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: > > 7. In Section 4.1.2, it would be good to describe any issues that the > > approach has with the original use of the Identification field for > > fragmentation reassembly. If a middlebox changes the ID field, weird > > things can/will happen if those packets are fragmented somewhere. > > Agree. I think this is precisely the reason that the mechanism for > putting the HOST_ID in the IP-ID is a non-starter. > > > 11. Is Section 4.6 theoretical or is there a specific reference > that can > > be added for this technique? > > There are several mechanisms that use port sets for IPv4 address > sharing. A+P (RFC6346) is one such mechanism. > > Section 4.6 is not about about A+P. In A+P there is also the use of a > shared public IPv4 address.
Right. But section 4.6 is about assigning port sets and Brian asked if that was any specific mechanisms that assigned port sets. A+P does so. Not sure about what you mean by "In A+P there is also the use of a shared public IPv4 address". This is the reason why we need a HOST_ID at all. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
