Re: [Mip4] New revision for rfc3344bis; UDP inconsistency and candidate solution

[Sami Vaarala <sami.vaarala at iki.fi>]

Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> Hello folks,
> [...]
> As pointed out, copying the value of the destination
> port into the source port should be identically the same
> as setting the source port value to 434.  So, the value
> of the field cannot be described as "variable" as things
> now stand.

Hi,

I haven't been following this discussion closely, but there
may be cases with NATs and port forwarding where this assumption
is incorrect.  For instance, if the HA is behind a port forwarding
device, the MN may be sending to port 434 but HA receiving at some
other port.

This is, of course, not necessarily something that has to be dealt
with in 3344bis, but a NAT/PF supporting implementation will have
to deal with.

BR,

-Sami

--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
   Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
    Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/