RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sun, 22 June 2008 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70FF3A6877; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EEF3A6877 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 B8Jw0vOvaY44 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C4D3A677E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,684,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="116699645"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2008 23:48:50 -0700
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5M6motC016093; Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:48:50 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5M6mnaY015556; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:48:50 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Chad Giffin'" <typosity@hotmail.com>
References: <BLU120-W24CBBA5119A964ACF674CBCAA40@phx.gbl>
Subject: RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:48:49 -0700
Message-ID: <012401c8d434$070cb3c0$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <BLU120-W24CBBA5119A964ACF674CBCAA40@phx.gbl>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AcjTx6wjKqPfpoAURvab31Oxx+LbHQAaBCKw
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3893; t=1214117330; x=1214981330; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20RNET=3A=20Random=20Network=20Endpoint=2 0Technology |Sender:=20; bh=Ha5ssB1/UUGeYBm3PxOVgI7+70Gje84he939SAKn87E=; b=tjfo0i8u8ZDSjkc3xFqgSQ+EgKzMwulqqb7czeFjPJF2LUcErPTGU2p7xQ EDFqZO0qzmATy3D1g9bI6w/S5I4ybJVdgU1SKq8jcu1b77pI7MhXOX6qkz8M 4FBHdPqb+g;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: 'IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chad Giffin [mailto:typosity@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:53 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: IETF
> Subject: RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology
> 
> > From: dwing@cisco.com
> > To: typosity@hotmail.com; ietf@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
> > Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:57:18 -0700
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Chad Giffin
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:49 AM
> >> To: IETF
> >> Subject: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
> >>
> >> June 18th, 1145h CDT
> >>
> >> To all members of the IETF mailing list;
> >>
> >> I have posted a description, twice, of the RNET protocol
> >> to this mailing list. I have also provided some updates
> >> concerning peer to peer connections between RNET Hosts.
> >>
> >> I have yet to receive /any/ response (other then an
> >> email with an empty body) concerning by postings.
> >
> > Here is a response, which appeared to have been CC'd to you:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51774.html
> 
> This message was actually posted by me :-)

It was posted by Eric Burger.  He wrote:

  *> From: eburger at standardstrack.com
  *> To: "Chad Giffin" <typosity at hotmail.com>, ietf at ietf.org
  *> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 21:49:24 +0000
  *>
  *> So we have reinvented STUN?
  ...

> > I agree with Eric; based on the description of RNET, it 
> > sounds much like STUN
> > combined with a rendezvous protocol (e.g., SIP). RNET is 
> > also similar to HIP's NAT traversal.
> >
> > STUN is RFC3489 and draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis. SIP is 
> > RFC3261. The use of
> > STUN with SIP is best described in 
> > draft-ietf-sipping-nat-scenarios. HIP's
> > NAT traversal is described in draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal.
> 
> I looked, albeit briefly, at STUN and SIP.  these protocols 
> are not at all like what I am suggesting.
>
> RNET will punch through firewalls/NATs without a problem.   
> Peer to Peer communication using RNET Host Addresses, 
> however, may present a problem when there are NATs between 
> them.  (The answer to this is simply to allow authenticated 
> RNET Route Requests to be made at every NAT/firewall)

Incoming messages are not just an authorization concern for
a NAPT -- more importantly, the NAPT needs to know where to route 
an incoming message.  For example, if there are two RNET-capable 
hosts behind a NAPT and an RNET message arrives on the NAPT's
public interface (that is, it arrives from the Internet), the 
NAPT will not know which RNET-capable host should get the 
message.  NAPTs resolve this delimma by first expecting (and
requiring) a packet to be sent by the 'inside' host to the
'outside' (Internet) host.

> I think you missed the point of RNET. 

That is likely true.

> The point being that 
> you have a valid IPv6 IP address and are able to plug into 
> any part of the internet and use it from that location.   

That sounds like Teredo, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling

> Your address is NOT advertised.  The routes made for 
> communication by your RNET Host decay so as not to polute the 
> internet's routing tables.
> 
> RNET is quite simple, easy to impliment.
> 
> RNET Route Requests and RNET Error Messages can be put 
> together under a new IP protocol, named RNET.  All that needs 
> to be done is to have a new protocol number assigned for this purpose.

It is not possible to deploy a new protocol behind a NAPT -- a NAPT
only understands how to translate UDP, TCP, ICMP, and (if enabled)
IPSec ESP.  RNET would have to be tunneled over UDP to be deployed
beyond a NAPT -- unless your goal is to have everyone upgrade their
NAPTs to RNET-aware NAPT devices.

-d

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf