Re: [clouds] draft-yokota-cloud-service-mobility

Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 25 January 2011 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED88928C0DB for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:03:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vyFQ2uYOlDCD for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:03:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9063A6889 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so52646eyd.31 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:06:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RIiZtVTHtA/iz294hA7tzdPWaggN9McBpOBJC1mpU9s=; b=w0MF3P5GCF2Pt0ktCtiuaAWb9XAE5P2OMSMUvK/SZ4jNJyFk46Sg4EPZpsVrcvq/Fj 2qOliPRoDgtssV6wpFbwzfxCi6cV2760xYfh6sGPzG0iOGknwAMEPSBEsWeFC3d3B6RN QfQ7iPXcyBiRbrBPRmmicARe/aC/22r5pYn3c=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=dsOCmSX8gfUk0DcJzYE/l8I/hwojvvRAMNyQch7RYh6t0FQ2Q5rs2dxWRT64i/KSe5 wgUTTnqpcXQis2evNcQGMtRs7Ts8dLTUwkAOcATXmpSZgBZrYL9KL6pgbC3m0qGzdvAY j1Tkxz4v+jPbh5GRFvPodwEbgdnzXQIkl0dpw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.181.141 with SMTP id l13mr141597wem.22.1295978760110; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:06:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.21.65 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:05:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D3EE86B.5050008@kddilabs.jp>
References: <AANLkTimUgYk7FTi-F5kM_wfxmmG68ZCxKWHxKS_QR-Rk@mail.gmail.com> <4D2EE067.3010102@kddilabs.jp> <AANLkTikn5ixzODCnLSDa=5jh7Mc91MH2=VAJu1iFJaDT@mail.gmail.com> <4D3EE86B.5050008@kddilabs.jp>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:05:59 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimY3ab7b6+bsg00GOhcQKz-ZWukJLMk+BXf6Xen@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: clouds@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [clouds] draft-yokota-cloud-service-mobility
X-BeenThere: clouds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <clouds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds>
List-Post: <mailto:clouds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:03:04 -0000

Hi Yokota-san,

For most of the things I mention without too much context, there is
probably an IETF WG for it. :))
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/nea/charter/ is the link. It is simlar
to the Microsoft NAP protocol or the TNC protocol.

The protocol the PA and PB, are similar. The point there is when a new
resource joins it is authenticated and current state checked, based on
its current state it is allowed to join the network.

Thanks,
Vishwas

2011/1/25 Hidetoshi Yokota <yokota@kddilabs.jp>jp>:
> Hi Vishwas,
>
> Thanks for your information. Are there any reference documents?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Hidetoshi
>
> (2011/01/25 3:39), Vishwas Manral wrote:
>> Hi Yokota-san,
>>
>> Another thing I was thinking about was actually aligning the work with
>> NEA work (which has a few similar requirements).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vishwas
>>
>> 2011/1/13 Hidetoshi Yokota<yokota@kddilabs.jp>jp>:
>>> Hi Vishwas,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for your input. The current draft is the initial cut, so
>>> there should be many to add ;-). Please also see inline:
>>>
>>> (2011/01/12 10:26), Vishwas Manral wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I looked at the document and there are a few very basic things I
>>>> wanted to state that need to be added:
>>>>
>>>> 1. There needs to be a capability exchange from the Execution node to
>>>> the Manager node.
>>>
>>> Yes, that should be done at the registration phase. I should add it with
>>> an appropriate option format.
>>>
>>>> 2. Scalability issues will occur if keepalives all go to the manager
>>>> node. In my view there can be a heirarchy of keepalives.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting an intermediate node that collects the keep-alives
>>> from some group of managed nodes and sends an aggregated message to the
>>> manager?
>>>
>>>> 3. There should be a heirarchy of manager nodes too, considering the
>>>> number of Execution nodes that need to be managed. So there should be
>>>> a messaging exchange allowed between Manager and Manager node.
>>>
>>> I see. Either hierarchical structure (manager of managers) or
>>> peer-to-peer structure (inter-manager) will be needed when the scale
>>> becomes larger.
>>>
>>>> 4. All TLV and headers should have length of 16 bits atleast. 8 bits
>>>> is not scalable at all with the amount of information that is there.
>>>
>>> Good suggestion. Will expand the field length.
>>>
>>>> 5. There needs to be authentication in the packets to provide some security.
>>>
>>> Ok. Maybe, some option that can carry MAC (Message Authentication Code)
>>> should be added. Or, do you think the whole message should be encrypted?
>>> In that case, we should mandate IPSec connection between the Manager
>>> Node and Execution Node.
>>>
>>>> 6. There needs to be async messaging allowed both from server to
>>>> client and client to server.
>>>
>>> Ok. I will add something like NOTIFY manage, which is spontaneous and
>>> can be sent by either side at any time.
>>>
>>>> 7. There is already a PCE framework that exists. We need to look at
>>>> it. It is used for simialr purposes in a TE network.
>>>
>>> Could you tell me any reference document such as RFC or conference
>>> paper, please?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Hidetoshi
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vishwas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>