Re: [icnrg] Last Call: draft-irtf-icnrg-ipoc

Luca Muscariello <> Mon, 23 March 2020 08:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08013A089D for <>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6yOIseSG1pPs for <>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D82413A08A6 for <>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m17so6686854wrw.11 for <>; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cz9Wc/EYOTtKIiZoNxGSz6aY4MzZnIs2F2YHgJA7uOg=; b=gUebE7JT/KTn0DNDm6oIPT4WxryxNklMQ1rceSawUo7SjhVpPFV0YXEj3QJ9pFHqkQ rX32vNDmSCurr27pH4OOK2heagMpOxew7csdBOAD6GL3Xi0rKW3FGTGI1EJ9QZa5+M0o GB39WsHigA6rERcQ99/yLsjEQ5QMQ85YmO9E0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cz9Wc/EYOTtKIiZoNxGSz6aY4MzZnIs2F2YHgJA7uOg=; b=agzr8/+UIA+ZfaPG+n6NE8pr7bKwDCrLDkxrzT5g2LpEMuOuKIz8zGgYWnBWLloux8 CjElFWqt6RfAJkW+CXpR6YC8CLRUm4JlCVt/EAHxSueCs7F1KdQwmQILCoNHJ7VPjKA9 ubM3fVUckW1l66s5byWIy5m25jeQIQhijw42/EIKpan7o7AUARCHIARksYNziot5edMt 1bXXBtkZ+E7EmZ4HrZbrUM3fDOXYxkW+/DKGZHc1eejebZFGuBIDrTqiyMB7uXxW+kou ucHfidmRoGPNcdocBWpE63aiw1s8QQ8x8ytmDmMbkJnqXyD1GyQ/a3Fb7IS1yU2+QZ4a 2FhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0UyU6VIGA5aJArXJhY79EzxI13o3CthEr7dMIKDKj7L47jUJ8V CnPT9bFqTjiGKfDZBnLhRulu8PXcbzRUksSgQqahxjzKNMs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsy8e0h/pa43v9dp9oYWst+71w4Z0aRXoHK7tr2sOwcW+rZaseahHp8vc9+AcqGN8YYeosVgVJN8otatcQ2SkY=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5288:: with SMTP id c8mr12419971wrv.223.1584950453636; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Luca Muscariello <>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:00:42 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: "David R. Oran" <>
Cc: ICNRG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c6b8d005a1810826"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Last Call: draft-irtf-icnrg-ipoc
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:01:07 -0000


I went through the draft and I have a few comments and some questions.

1 how does this system work when IP addresses at local interfaces change?
  My question is about both the underlying mechanics and also the
  of the system in such cases.
2 What are the implications of using signed Interests in this way? I mean
  100% of the Interests are signed in the tunneling scheme. My question is
  in terms of security and performance. And with performance I mean both
  mobility and local flow balance.
3 Is there any reality check and running code of this scheme?
  Every Internet draft comes with a security section but not a cost section
  however it is unclear in this specific case, what are the benefits of
  scheme and if one would need it compared to existing tunneling
  The alleged benefits of CCNx in terms of mobility are never spelled out
in the
  draft but it is unclear if any mobility benefit still holds using this
4 The cost of signing every packet is significant and would probably kill
  the performance of the tunnel. In the last section the authors seem to
  consider interest/data signatures as optional. Can this be clarified and
  out clearly? Is the intent to use the tunnel w/o signatures?


On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:51 PM David R. Oran <> wrote:

> Hello ICNRG,
> This is a last call for comments on draft-irtf-icnrg-IPOC (Internet
> Protocol Tunneling over Content Centric Mobile Networks).
> We want to publish this as an Experimental RFC. Please read it and let
> us know if you think there are issues. The last call ends on April 15,
> i.e., 3 weeks from today.
> Abstract
>     This document describes a protocol that enables tunneling of
> Internet
>     Protocol traffic over a Content Centric Network (CCNx) or a Named
>     Data Network (NDN).  The target use case for such a protocol is to
>     provide an IP mobility plane for mobile networks that might
> otherwise
>     use IP-over-IP tunneling, such as the GPRS Tunneling Protocol (GTP)
>     used by the Evolved Packet Core in LTE networks (LTE-EPC).  By
>     leveraging the elegant, built-in support for mobility provided by
>     CCNx or NDN, this protocol achieves performance on par with LTE-EPC,
>     equivalent efficiency, and substantially lower implementation and
>     protocol complexity [Shannigrahi].  Furthermore, the use of CCNx/NDN
>     for this purpose paves the way for the deployment of ICN native
>     applications on the mobile network.
> Best regards,
> ICNRG chairs
> DaveO
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list