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

[Hasnaa Moustafa <[e-mail]>]

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.



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 ?





I thought to share thes epoints with you and with all the list for more
feedback.



Kind regards,

Hassnaa




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

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *From: *[e-mail]
> *Subject: **fmc Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3*
> *Date: *December 7, 2012 12:27:41 AM PST
> *To: *[e-mail]
> *Reply-To: *[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]
>
> 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]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [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]>
> *Subject: **Re: [fmc] [Int-area]
> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios*
> *Date: *December 6, 2012 11:16:00 PM PST
> *To: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
> "George, Wes" <[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]" <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>  Dear Wes,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
>
> De : George, Wes [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
> Envoyé : mardi 4 décembre 2012 21:09
>
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>
> Cc : [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-3will 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]] On
>
>  Behalf Of [e-mail]
>
>  Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 4:08 AM
>
>  To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>
>  Cc: [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:i-d-announce-
>
>  [e-mail]] De la part de [e-mail]
>
> Envoyé : lundi
>
>  3 décembre 2012 08:26 À : [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]
>
>  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]
>
>  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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fmc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fmc
>
>
>