IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima-signaling] GRASP issue 49: More text about inter-domain GRASP

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 02 August 2016 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EED12D7D8 for <anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id apmTX6YHNi56 for <anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6511C12D7C8 for <anima-signaling@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23202009E; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F066638D1; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:56:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160802115054.GA21039@cisco.com>
References: <623af621-1d6e-c5f3-17a1-63f8d5fe3ffd@gmail.com> <03f239b1-bfda-d283-cf60-b81dacd61156@gmail.com> <20160802115054.GA21039@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:56:02 -0400
Message-ID: <31656.1470153362@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-signaling/Nd2lnJQfSfqRQMoJLHj9vdUmuVE>
Cc: Anima signaling DT <anima-signaling@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Anima-signaling] GRASP issue 49: More text about inter-domain GRASP
X-BeenThere: anima-signaling@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the signaling design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-signaling.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-signaling>, <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-signaling/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-signaling@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-signaling>, <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:56:04 -0000

Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > In our Cisco implementation, we allow services to run on systems that
    > do not have ACP - just because its evolving work to get the ACP onto
    > such systems. Eg: TFTP servers, Radius Servers - or the like. SO there's
    > a leg of the ACP that's unencrypted. And the deployment requirement is
    > to physcially protect this segment - aka: router with ACP co-located with
    > those servers n a secure NOC room. And we use mDNS there.

I was under the impression that we'd make this secure either by physical
means (as you write), or by putting those services in containers or VMs, and
connect them to devices/routers that would have ACP on them.

    > Now i could easily imagine that the next step would be to have multiple
    > disjoined autonomic networks, but a shared NOC. In that case, the
    > reason that we don't use encryption is not only "server systems suck, have no ACP",
    > but also: If a server should provide objectives (services) to multiple
    > autonomic networks, then we would need to solve how it could be cryptographically
    > part of multiple ACPs. Thats even more work.

I'm not sure it's that big a deal to be part of multiple ACPs.
Depends a lot upon the details of the service.

For some services build upon a multi-tier architecture (anything RESTful,
such as NETCONF...) then putting a front-end server into two ACPs while
connecting to middle-ware on a common back-end network would be trivial.

Ditto: Radius things, you can always add a layer of radius proxy.
TFTP servers... not a huge deal, just NFS mount /tftpboot across a backend
LAN from the real machine and have multiple TFTP servers in multiple ACPs.

    > If i take your text and would want to build a solution around it, then
    > i could think of some gateway-device thats part of two ACPs, and
    > has an ASA participating in each ACPs GRASP instance and is filtering/forwarding
    > objectives that should be allowed to be used across ACPs. Makes sense too...


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email