Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] DNS vs port overloading

From: ivan c <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 21:34:41 +0200

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:03:06 +0200, Simon Perreault
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Le 2013-06-28 00:11, Mark Andrews a écrit :
>>> Right, but, port overloading is not what kills the randomization done
by
>>> the DNS client. Non-port preserving NAT is what kills it.
>>
>> Deterministic (e.g. sequential) port assignment kills it.  Port
>> overloading kills it if not done sensibly.
> 
> Sure, but isn't all that already covered by RFC 6056?
> 
> That is, does anything still need to be said about this?
> 
> Simon

I would agree that a reference to RFC 6056 is enough.
This point is about the allocation algorithm used by the NAT.
A NAT should try to preserve port randomness, which excludes some
allocation algorithms.
This applies equally to the allocation algorithms that use port
overloading and the ones that don't.

-- 
_Ivan Chollet_