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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:28 PM, David Allan I <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> The only network upgrade for ILNP is DNS support for RFC 6742, which is
> believe is already deployed.
>
>
I am not sure about deployed but maybe defined is better.
However, DNS is not privacy enabled which is our main issue here.

Regards,
Behcet

> Cheers
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 5gangip <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Saleem Bhatti
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 9:19 AM
> To: Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>; 5GANGIP <[e-mail]>; Behcet
> Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [5gangip] New Version Notification for
> draft-xyzy-atick-gaps-00.txt
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>