[hiaps] extra identifier need in SFC
<Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de> Thu, 04 December 2014 09:34 UTC
Return-Path: <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932941A00DF; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 01:34:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.859
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 z_WPTcdDwZ3t; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 01:34:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D7B1A0101; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 01:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s4de8nsazdfe010.bmbg.telekom.de ([10.175.246.202]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2014 10:34:12 +0100
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,514,1413237600"; d="scan'208,217";a="578308336"
Received: from he111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.22]) by q4de8nsa015.bmbg.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 04 Dec 2014 10:34:05 +0100
Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.124]) by HE111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:33:51 +0100
From: Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de
To: sfc@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:33:50 +0100
Thread-Topic: extra identifier need in SFC
Thread-Index: AdAPpUjhmNn+H6uoQ0Kdyzhkj90+Ng==
Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2E9F3BB42E@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2E9F3BB42EHE113484emea1_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hiaps/JZf8_iVtubkUT-qB4MadWFbd7Go
Cc: joelja@bogus.com, hiaps@ietf.org
Subject: [hiaps] extra identifier need in SFC
X-BeenThere: hiaps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identification, Address and Prefix Sharing in Wi-Fi Access \(hiaps\)" <hiaps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hiaps>, <mailto:hiaps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hiaps/>
List-Post: <mailto:hiaps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hiaps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiaps>, <mailto:hiaps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:34:23 -0000
Hi all, Last May we had submitted a draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-sfc-address-sharing-in-sfc-00 on host identification problem in SFC which addresses some related use cases and aims at discussion on corresponding requirements and architecture issues. In http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-sfc-design-analysis-03.txt where solution design options are analyzed and recommendations given, the need for an additional identifier is also mentioned. We are not sure whether this (not SFC specific) problem may call for solutions complimentary to those for use cases which are currently considered in SFC. To not overload or burden the WG with this issue at this time we think it may be useful to proceed with discussions on these and possibly other related use cases on the hiaps list (hiaps@ietf.org<mailto:hiaps@ietf.org>) dealing with Host Identification, Address and Prefix Sharing to take it up and go from there. What do you think? We invite SFC'ers to join hiaps if not already done and help us tackle this problem. Regards, Dirk and Behcet
- [hiaps] extra identifier need in SFC Dirk.von-Hugo