Re: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 23 June 2008 12:48 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 011B63A6872; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:48:42 -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 0E11F3A6872 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 KdrUFdCxKvPj for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC0603A67FA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2008 12:48:32 -0000
Received: from a91-154-105-144.elisa-laajakaista.fi (EHLO [192.168.255.3]) [91.154.105.144] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 23 Jun 2008 14:48:32 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Gxgd+/68GBrxSLjEBv26Lr2HrQM1rR9Bh+NOGLI +/5wqEkMywVwY7
Message-ID: <485F9B9E.7010106@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:48:30 +0300
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology
References: <BLU120-W24CBBA5119A964ACF674CBCAA40@phx.gbl> <012401c8d434$070cb3c0$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <012401c8d434$070cb3c0$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

The description is too short to judge your proposal in a reasonable way. 
I would have todo a lot of guessing.
Additionally, I have doubts that there is a need for a new protocol 
given that we are not short on solutions.

So, why are you doing this at all? Nothing else todo for the next 5 years?

Ciao
Hannes



Dan Wing wrote:
>  
>
>   
>> -----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
>   

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