Re: [fmc] fmc Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3

[<[e-mail]>]

Dear Hasnaa,

Thank you for reading the draft.

Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med

________________________________
De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Hasnaa Moustafa
Envoyé : mardi 11 décembre 2012 20:22
À : [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [fmc] fmc Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3


Dear Med,

I read the draft and have some issues to discuss on the use-cases.
I think that Host-ID would be useful for the case of Home Networks in a scenario as follows:
-  Several hosts exist in the home network that can belong to the same or multiple users
-  The NAT functionality could be carried out either in the RG or in another Border node
-  The host access could be through WiFi AP, FAP or even Ethernet (e.g. connected TV)
-  Video streaming is the popular application/traffic in home network through the different hosts
-  Each host is considered as a device with different characteristics (i.e. requiring the end server to  distinguish each device to provide the adequate content for each host) for better QoE
- Each host has a private IPv4 address while there is one shared public IPv4 address by all the Home Network
-  Consequently, a HostID solution is beneficial in this use case

I am not sure if the motivation for Host-ID need in such scenario matches the objective of Host-ID in your draft and if this scenario is implicitly covered in some of the use-cases mentioned in the draft.
[Med] Wouldn't this be achieved at the application level? announce/discover the device capabilities and then the server will adapt the way it will server the device?

Another case that could be checked maybe is the HetNets scenario. According to 3GPP definition for HetNets/small cells: Small cells are lower power nodes working in the same frequency as the macro cell nodes, and the heterogeneity of the network comes from the varying power levels within the deployed nodes.
A host could be attached to one or more small cells and could be simultaneously attached to a small cell and a macro cell at the same time. Private IPv4 addresses are assigned in each cell (macro or pico), and there could be  several scenarios as follows:

-         host attached to only the macro cell: similar HostID issue to the cellular network use-case

-         host attached to only a small cell: similar HostID issue to the case of cellular network use-case

-         host attached to both the  macro cell  and a small cell: Selected IP Traffic Offload is enabled by NAT based on operator policies (e.g. per IP address) [3GPP TR 23.829]. Here there might be a new issue ?
[Med] Thank you for sharing this use case. From an IP perspective, the way cells are engineered isn't orthogonal to identification issues? The SIPTO sub-case is IMHO important to consider not only for the small cell case but in for mobile networks in general. The SIPTO case may induce some issues for both IPv4 and IPv6.


 I thought to share thes epoints with you and with all the list for more feedback.
[Med] Many thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will be more than please to integrate you text on the SIPTO case.

Kind regards,
Hassnaa




On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Hassnaa Moustafa <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: fmc Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3
Date: December 7, 2012 12:27:41 AM PST
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription.  To do so, go to

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fmc

Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option
globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.



Send fmc mailing list submissions to
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fmc
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

You can reach the person managing the list at
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of fmc digest..."
Today's Topics:

  1. Re: [Int-area]
     draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios (Tina TSOU)

From: Tina TSOU <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [fmc] [Int-area] draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios
Date: December 6, 2012 11:16:00 PM PST
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "George, Wes" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>


Dear Med et al,
In general, I like the current version. Some comments are below.
1.      From my understanding, this document provides the use cases for the issues and analysis in "draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis". Is it correct? If it is , I suggest this document be referenced in "nat-reveal-analysis".
2.      Regarding this document, in the section of CGN use case, the stateless NAT44 case should be included.
3.      For A+P section, the MAP/Lw4over6 cases may be considered.
4.      In figure 6, the UE may have an interface with AF to initiate the session request, e.g., SIP.

Thank you,
Tina

On Dec 4, 2012, at 11:10 PM, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear Wes,

Thank you for your comments.

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : George, Wes [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Envoyé : mardi 4 décembre 2012 21:09
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : RE: draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios

I've read this draft, and I think the use case list is
reasonably complete.

However, it's really unclear to me what the value of this
draft might be in its current form, and what its intended
audience might be. Cataloging use cases is not all that
helpful by itself without an end goal in mind, and that end
goal is not clear from the draft.

Med: The goal of this draft is what is described in Section 2:

"The goal is to
  identify scenarios the authors are aware of and which share the same
  issue of host identification.

  This document does not include any solution-specific discussion.
  This document can be used as a tool to design solution(s) mitigating
  the encountered issues.  Having a generic solution which would solve
  the issues encountered in these use cases is preferred over designing
  a solution for each use case.  Describing the use case allows to
  identify what is common between the use cases and then would help
  during the solution design phase."

Next updates of this draft will:
* include a discussion section to assess whether the issue is valid for IPv4-only or it applies also for IPv6
* include a discussion text to clarify whether each use case is valid within one single administrative domain or not
* include a discussion text to identify use cases which share the same requirements (this will help in designing the solution)
* add additional use cases if any

At given point in time we need to draw conclusions about the following:
(1) are these use cases valid ones?
(2) if this is a real technical problem, what the IETF can do to solve the issue?
(3) if there is interest in this area, how to organize the work for the solution space.

The scope is deliberately
very narrow and references other drafts that discuss some of
the surrounding issues with address sharing and unique
identifiers, and so there is very little text in each section
beyond a basic description. Even when you think of this in
terms of follow-on drafts such as a gap analysis or problem
statement or solution drafts, one wonders how useful it is to
spread this across multiple drafts. So why not simply
incorporate this list into one of the referenced general
drafts on host identification, such as nat-reveal-analysis and
then broaden that draft so that it considers and addresses the
other use cases as appropriate?

Med: As I mentioned above, we don't want to include any solution-specific discussion to this draft. The text is shortened in purpose.


Otherwise, I think that the draft needs to be much clearer
about the unique issues and considerations for each use case,
especially those that are somehow distinct from those covered
in nat-reveal-analysis so that it can serve as a better input
to any potential solutions addressing this problem.

Med: Fully agreed. This will be added to the next rev of the draft.


I also believe that if this draft is to remain a standalone
document, the authors need to make at least some attempt at
discussing security and privacy considerations here, even if
it is mainly to refer the reader to more in-depth discussions
of the matter in other drafts.

Med: Agree. A pointer to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04#section-3 will be added to the next rev of the draft. The text will also include some discussion for use cases which are restricted to one single administrative domain.


Again, here is an area where
being clear about the specific considerations for each use
case is important, identifying whether the other drafts
discuss things so that they are applicable to all of the use
cases, or if the use cases are unique in any number of ways
that will mean that they have unique privacy and security
considerations.

Thanks,

Wes George

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On
Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 4:08 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Int-area] draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios

Dear all,

We submitted an updated version of this draft to list use cases which
encounter the issue of host identification. The following
use cases are
discussed in the draft:

  (1)  Carrier Grade NAT (CGN)
  (2)  A+P (e.g., MAP )
  (3)  Application Proxies
  (4)  Provider Wi-Fi
  (5)  Policy and Charging Architectures
  (6)  Cellular Networks
  (7)  Femtocells
  (8)  Overlay Networks (e.g., CDNs)

The document does not include any solution-specific
discussion. Its main
goal is to identify the use cases and describe them.

If you think your use case is not included in this version,
please share
it with us.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Med


-----Message d'origine-----
De : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:i-d-announce-<mailto:i-d-announce->
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] De la part de [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Envoyé : lundi
3 décembre 2012 08:26 À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Objet : I-D Action:
draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-02.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.


     Title           : Host Identification: Use Cases
     Author(s)       : Mohamed Boucadair
                         David Binet
                         Sophie Durel
                         Tirumaleswar Reddy
                         Brandon Williams
     Filename        : draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-
scenarios-02.txt
     Pages           : 14
     Date            : 2012-12-02

Abstract:
  This document describes a set of scenarios in which host
  identification is required.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-
identifier-scenarios

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-
scenarios-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-boucadair-intarea-host-
identifier-scenarios-02


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary information, which is privileged,
confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner
Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy
of this E-mail and any printout.

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area


_______________________________________________
fmc mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fmc