Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for draft-xyzy-atick-gaps-00.txt

[Saleem Bhatti <[e-mail]>]

Tom;

> On 30 May 2018, at 16:44, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Behcet,
> 
> The statement "For ILNP the basic deployment requires end-systems to
> be updated." is unscoped. As written, this would imply that all hosts
> on the Internet need to be updated to support ILNP. That is simply a
> non-starter.

Good catch - thanks.

> If the idea is that ILNP can be deployed by networks then
> hosts within that network can be updated.

Only those end-systems that need to use ILNP need to be updated. ILNP nodes can work in networks with non-ILNP nodes - see Section 10.4 of RFC6741.


> But, then the question
> becomes how ILNP hosts are going to be able to talk non ILNP hosts
> (say servers on the Internet). For that the an ILNP gateway or proxy
> also must be deployed in the network.

A gateway or proxy is not required.

ILNPv6 can be seen as a superset of IPv6. ILNPv6 drops back to IPv6 when required - the process is described in Section 10.6 of RFC6741.

Cheers,
--/Saleem


> 
> Tom
> 
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Luigi, Saleem,
>> 
>> What is the agreement now as to the revision of the draft?
>> 
>> I had already added some text regarding UE being alone on the link, i.e.
>> point-to-point link in wireless networks, that should make both sides happy?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Behcet
>> 
>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Saleem,
>>> 
>>> On 29 May 2018, at 12:03, Saleem Bhatti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Luigi;
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your comments - my responses are inline, below.
>>> 
>>> On 29 May 2018, at 09:32, Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 28 May 2018, at 19:16, Saleem Bhatti <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> There is some text which is incorrect - on page 4:
>>> 
>>> ----
>>>   Furthermore, ILNP demands a change in the way local (e.g., within a
>>>   LAN) communication is carried out, needing all of the devices to
>>>   support ILNP.  This in turn may raise heavy deployability issues.
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> This is not true - "all devices" do *not* need to be updated, but only
>>> those end-systems that wish to use ILNPv6. Switches
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Switches clearly do not need to be changed since they are L2.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>>> 
>>> However, the text clearly says "all of the devices", which is incorrect.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> and routers
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You need to implement the ILCC in your first hop router.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No, that is not required. I have a testbed at St Andrews and we run Linux
>>> routers that are not modified, and are not ILNP-aware. For example, please
>>> see the testbed experiment described in this paper:
>>> 
>>>  IP without IP addresses
>>>  https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3012695.3012701
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the pointer. :-)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then you need new ICMP messages, and few other tricks here and there in
>>> existing stuff.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The new ICMP messages, e.g. Locator Updates for ILNPv6, RFC6743, are
>>> end-to-end - only the end hosts needs to be updated to generate these
>>> messages.
>>> 
>>> If any on-path routers wish to examine such messages, then yes, they would
>>> need to be updated, but that is not required for ILNPv6 to work.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ack.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Other solutions are more clear because introduce new entities and
>>> protocol, so either you have it or you don’t.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yet, may be the last sentence can be soften deleting  “heavy”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> All new solutions will incur some sort of deployment overhead, so I am not
>>> sure why such a comment should apply specifically and only to ILNP.
>>> 
>>> For ILNP the basic deployment requires end-systems to be updated. Such
>>> updates would be deployed through over-the-air updates, as is common today
>>> with many operating systems. DNS entries for ILNP nodes would also be
>>> needed, and the new DNS RRs for ILNP (RFC6742) are supported commercially
>>> (e.g. by BIND, NSD, and KnotDNS, and possibly others)..
>>> 
>>> For other solutions, other deployment issues exist, e.g. for ILA and LISP,
>>> new network entities/functions need to be deployed and managed for routing,
>>> and so, I guess, the existing network will need to be reconfigured to
>>> integrate the new functionality. I am guessing some operators may find that
>>> a "heavy" deployment burden, but it is best that those operators comment on
>>> whether or not they see that is a problem, as I have no experience with
>>> running large networks.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Updating end-systems is IMHO a real nightmare. You have no control on who
>>> will update and when. Network history is full of such examples.
>>> Yes, ILA and LISP has to be deployed by operators, but they can have full
>>> control of what will happen in their own network (which they usually like).
>>> YMMV.
>>> 
>>> In general, I may agree that deployment considerations for all of the
>>> considered solutions can be improved and corrected.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> --/Saleem
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ciao
>>> 
>>> L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> do not need to be updated, as ILNPv6 is backwards compatible with IPv6. It
>>> is possible to run an ILNPv6 node in a LAN which also has non-ILNPv6 nodes.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> --/Saleem
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 25 May 2018, at 15:50, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> We have submitted the gaps draft. Those who have contributed text are
>>> listed as co-authors.
>>> Please send your comments to the list.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dirk& Behcet
>>> 
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-xyzy-atick-gaps-00.txt
>>> has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
>>> IETF repository.
>>> 
>>> Name:           draft-xyzy-atick-gaps
>>> Revision:       00
>>> Title:          Gap and Solution Space Analysis for End to End Privacy
>>> Enabled Mapping System
>>> Document date:  2018-05-25
>>> Group:          Individual Submission
>>> Pages:          10
>>> URL:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xyzy-atick-gaps-00.txt
>>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xyzy-atick-gaps/
>>> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xyzy-atick-gaps-00
>>> Htmlized:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xyzy-atick-gaps
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Abstract:
>>>   This document presents a gap and solution analysis for end-to-end
>>>   privacy enabled mapping systems.  Each of the identifier locator
>>>   separation system has its own approach to mapping identifiers to the
>>>   locators.  We analyse all these approaches and identify the gaps in
>>>   each of them and do a solution space analysis in an attempt to
>>>   identify a mapping system that can be end to end privacy enabled.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission
>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>> 
>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 5gangip mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 5gangip mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 5gangip mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 5gangip mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip