status (Thursday soon)

[Francis Dupont]

> <snip>
> => 01 is compatible with 02, the problem is in the other way.
> => I implemented the 01 and setup the demo in the intersection of 01 and 02
> (by accident: it was just the simplest, good for a demo but not for the real
> world but this is another debate :-).
> 
> So your sdnat code implements 01 but is configured to behave as 02 ?
> (because 01 is a superset of 02?)

=> yes

> <snip>
> => this won't be in the demo and IMHO it won't work (i.e., deeply broken)
> 
> Is the issue more "bad protocol / systems design" or is the issue with
> "using ICMP within the Linux system and the ability to re-adjust ports on
> the fly" ?

=> the first unfortunately.

> I.e. are your objections design or coding specific ?

=> The design. I don't say there is no coding issue but this is not
dependent on the way a port range change is announced, just from the
idea of port range change and the illusion it can be smooth...

Regards

Francis Dupont <fdupont at isc.org>