Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: > Right, yes, I didn't see it from that standpoint. However UPnP > can of course be substituted by NAT-PMP/PCP or something else > that doesn't have the same discovery problem, and ISP-level NATs > will no longer be a "Problem" for clients needing incoming > connections even though they can no longer be said to be "Public". Right. For example, an ISP, today, can tell its client public IP addresses assigned to the client. Then, the client can configure them by hand. There is no discovery problem. Just like that, an ISP can tell its client a public IP address and public port numbers of the address assigned to the client. Then, the client can configure them by hand. Or, it is trivially easy to add DHCP/PP option so that ISPs can automatically tell their clients the address/port information for each client. If port allocation is more dynamic involving gateway-client communication, there should be a DHCP/PPP option to tell client the IP address (and port) of a gateway for the gateway-client communication. > Of course we're assuming that clients are in direct contact with > their gateway here, I'm not sure how true that is, there may need > to be added proxying to replicate requests otherwise. It certainly > isn't impossible to do. Sure. What is necessary is clear documentation of DHCP/PPP extensions and gateway-client protocols. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf