Re: [BEHAVE] [sunset4] Last Call: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07.txt (Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)) to Best Current Practice

2012-07-11 Thread Shin Miyakawa
Tina, Thanks for the comment. First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known port numbers should be mentioned. I think that even if well know port is allocated as src address, there would be no problem. The document is aiming at minimal set of requirements to make

Re: [sunset4] Last Call: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07.txt (Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)) to Best Current Practice

2012-07-11 Thread Simon Perreault
On 07/10/2012 10:43 PM, Tina TSOU wrote: First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known port numbers should be mentioned. As draft editor, I would ask for a justification. I can't add a requirement without a justification. Moreover if port numbers are allocated to

Re: [sunset4] Last Call: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07.txt (Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)) to Best Current Practice

2012-07-11 Thread Tina TSOU
There are few things that in my opinion should be added. First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known port numbers should be mentioned. Moreover if port numbers are allocated to each CPE, what is the criteria for allocation. As mentioned in the document : “ There should

Re: [sunset4] Last Call: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07.txt (Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs (CGNs)) to Best Current Practice

2012-07-11 Thread Sam Hartman
Hi. I'd like to speak in favor of maintaining endpoint independent filtering as the default and maintaining requirement 11 D. I think requirement 11 D is important for avoiding some hard to analyze but potentially very dangerous security problems. If I can trick a NAT into replacing an existing