Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-jennings-midcom-stun-results-00.txt]

On Feb 15, 2004, at 4:56 PM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

> Cullen,
>
> Interesting compilation of results. Thank you. A few comments below.
>
> 1. Primary & Secondary columns in the draft being different - This 
> strikes me
> as wierd. Would appreciate if you can shed some light on the test used 
> to
> categorize it thus. If the tests did indeed correctly categrorize a 
> box as
> being different between primary & secondary port users - Does someone 
> have a
> clue as to why a vendor might have chosen to do this intentionally? 
> (or) is it
> likely a unintended bug in the product?

who knows the motivation?  I suspect its a bug.

> Take the case of a Primary being port-restricted and secondary being 
> symmetric
> - Is the primary truely tested for port-restricted NAT criteria with 
> multiple
> outgoing and incoming sessions? I..e, Did the same primary-port 
> end-point
> initiate multiple outgoing connections;

yes and yes.  the test client has two IP addresses from which it 
initiates several requests in some cases with the same source port.

> And, even as some of the outgoing
> connections have aged out, the permitted incoming connections are 
> restricted to
> only those coming from the (ExtAddr, ExtPort) tuples to which there 
> were
> outgoing sessions previously? Likewise, Was a secondary port user 
> unable to
> initiate multiple outgoing sessions using the same port bind?
>
> In case, the test was performed using a single session on primary port 
> user, I
> believe, the box may as well have been a "Symmetric NAT" all across 
> (primary as
> well as secondary port users).
>
> Likewise, take the case of primary being port-restricted and secondary 
> being
> full-cone. Depending upon how the test was performed, this may very 
> well have
> been "Full cone" for both primary and secondary port users.
>
> 2. Group-D/BAD port-binding sounds buggy to me. Why would a vendor 
> choose to do
> this intentionally? I.e., hope this is the right thing to do most of 
> the time?

Exactly!

thanks,
-rohan