Tina, Thanks for the comment. > First, the port numbers to be allocated to CPE. Excluding Well known port numbers should be mentioned. I think that even if well know port is allocated as src address, there would be no problem. The document is aiming at "minimal" set of requirements to make CGN transparent, I agree with that this could be helpful but I don't think this is a critical condition to make this I-D an RFC, isn't it ? > Moreover if port numbers are allocated to each CPE, what is the criteria for allocation. I think that it's operators' choice :-) <snip> > Some amount of clarity in this respect would be helpful. I also think this kind of information is usuful, but this could be discussed in other draft isn't it ? > Moreover, the document advocates the use of Endpoint independent filtering. If AID is used, there would be a delay of 120 seconds for each port reallocation. So should EIF be used only with those applications that canʼt function without it, instead of applying it for all. I see... Especially, Simon, how do you think ? > > The need to maintain a record or database of the allocated ports and their lifetime would be helpful. For example, if port is statically assigned, there is no need to have such record. So, again, I agree with that this is of course a clue to operate CGN better in certain environment, but still is not a critical, I think. So, how about we could create a document with such a hint for CGN operation seprately then let this I-D move forward now ? > Tina Best wishes, Shin Miyakawa