Subject: RE: [midcom] Semantics #1: PRR behaviour

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:42:37 -0500

Two weeks later ... finally able to reply.

The semantics are simpler in my view if both sides are allocated when
needed.  That way the Agent doesn't need to know the FW/NAT configuration in
advance, and can simply ask for the necessary addresses if any to be
reserved.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [midcom] Semantics #1: PRR behaviour
> 
> 
> The semantics propose currently that PRR does
> 
> - outside address/port allocation for a traditional NAT
> - outside and inside address/port allocation for a twice NAT.
> 
> But it is really needed to allocate both sides of a twice NAT 
> during a 
> PRR transaction or is it sufficient enough to just allocate 
> the outside 
> address/port?
> 
> The semantics could be simplified if only the outside 
> address/port  is 
> allocated (indepent of middlebox type). Or do you see a 
> scenario where 
> both sides must be allocated during the PRR transaction?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
>