Subject: Re: [Softwires] Section 5.1 of the MAP draft

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:38:26 +0100

> But there has been a firm requirement in the WG that, even for shared addresses, one of the CE could have the well-known ports. 
> The WKPs-authorized option has been added to 4rd to satisfy this requirement. 
> I don't think this requirement has disappeared.

does anyone in the working group have an opinion on the well-known ports and shared IPv4 addresses?
the options we have are:

a) if well-known ports are required then a full IPv4 address must be assigned
b) allow that one user gets the well-known addresses,
    but then the port block must at least be > 1024 ports.

do we know that end users only need ports 0-1023 or 0-4095?
or are the ports the require to be opened inbound across the range?

I'm leaning towards a.

cheers,
Ole

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:48:04 -0500

I support (a).

---

From: Satoru Matsushima <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 23:23:29 +0900

>    but then the port block must at least be > 1024 ports.

It is not clear to me is that whether a full IPv4 address is required or not even when a user just want a well-known port.

> do we know that end users only need ports 0-1023 or 0-4095?

need 22, but don't need 25, but need 53 and also need 80, etc., etc., of course it is not MAP use case at all.

> or are the ports the require to be opened inbound across the range?

As far as I know, that kind of port is used to open inbound session.

> I'm leaning towards a.

Is this as an item of out of scope of MAP?

cheers,
--satoru

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:16:17 +0000

I support (a). 

Not allowing the usage of the reserved port range 0-1023 is one less thing
for an operator to worry about.

0-1023 range is good enough to be blocked.

Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:38 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Section 5.1 of the MAP draft

>> But there has been a firm requirement in the WG that, even for shared
>>addresses, one of the CE could have the well-known ports.
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: Maoke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:17:21 +0900

2013/2/5 Ole Troan <[email-masked]>

>     but then the port block must at least be > 1024 ports.

(a) is comfortable. i do think that, when MAP is used for non-shared IPv4
addresses, either public or private, well-known ports are surely available
with the exclusively used IPv4 addresses to enable server-side
applications. such a demand exists. the idea is as the same as (a).

(b) is acceptable with the condition that the port set size > 1024.
well-known port usage for the shared IPv4 address is somehow tricky as it,
philosophically, doesn't fit some considerations when we design the MAP
architecture. e.g., well-known ports are well-known while the A+P framework
incline to assign non-contiguous port numbers for a host for some reasons
like privacy/security. on the other hand, the port set size > 1024
condition may restrict the operation so that PSID length, offset, ea-bit
length cannot be selected arbitrarily according to the regular MAP
deployment logic.

- maoke