Re: [lisp] We need LISP over HTTP!

Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <damien.saucez@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CEEF1A0158 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hGmfHL7v3aOs for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D7361A8782 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so71588730wic.1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=if4VTxsyyrqXw1LFwbaLAzdLdFTQCJE2+WUiPtaXPLg=; b=ghVFEhHbu83gEwTBAuWD3euttYcaEDRzIgljQY/8aTwsXmKrupoxCpvnnyUdhe2g3U Q72MHkUSEtnMjHKmTXyY9Q3zUL519PgK0vvnJm1HxdWHBVFFYp60Dy4LPveYvBfRu6Bj QDdW/p66a1p4MHGc1/KfMYS09lrr/6FAqXBWN6ghgQXdFYXtO2+phE/3JCLfVWB5BYQf Yk3morF7zgOWp6SNiksSg6J3nm/07TJ/0noxtO6WzoEhlVD9iE65+EkN3o8y8Sx1iKLC 4vK5lTAGsebcmmhmKqx/qvn/Rui1Yj6jOUSZMd+3GfYOmVjmjhSruewLN1Nsuj+mEnxb yGRw==
X-Received: by 10.194.112.104 with SMTP id ip8mr6424545wjb.85.1443632562605; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.105.146.188] ([158.227.0.239]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pu6sm1605828wjc.34.2015.09.30.10.02.41 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F061CEB6876F904F8EA6D6B92877731C38FF4174@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:02:40 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3366C8BB-A044-4F7F-9E86-785222BA1839@gmail.com>
References: <74B6E61C-5E38-4CA4-BD6C-90E9B6F7C4E9@gmail.com> <F061CEB6876F904F8EA6D6B92877731C38FF4174@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
To: Richard Li <renwei.li@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/IO_zP3Ev9a6Kod2TCLLZ7UDbL4g>
Cc: LISP mailing list list <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] We need LISP over HTTP!
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:02:46 -0000

On 30 Sep 2015, at 18:54, Richard Li <renwei.li@huawei.com> wrote:

> It might solve your NAT problem, but I am afraid it is not a good idea to have something like LISP carried by TCP since you have to hold up the connection and transporting states between xTRs for each flow or each packet, which will bring you a huge scale problem. You could do experiments with it, but it is unlikely to get accepted in production networks.
> 

I agree, the point is just to have an escape mode in case of filtering. I was more thinking of an evolution of NAT-traversal so just between the node and the RTR, and only if it is strictly necessary. Obviously, it is not necessary to integrate it in LISP and we can fix it making VPNs but then you have a VPN to escape and the RTR so you jump from your place to the VPN endpoint then only RTR, which is not very efficient.

> Can you re-try it by re-configuring your NAT?
> 

No. In practice you don’t control the CGN or the ACLs of the network you roam in when you are in LISP-MN.

Damien Saucez 

> 
> Renwei
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lisp [mailto:lisp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Damien Saucez
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 6:48 AM
> To: LISP mailing list list
> Subject: [lisp] We need LISP over HTTP!
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Today again I was in the situation where I was not able to run my LISP setup in the place I visited.
> All was supposed to work well using the NAT traversal. But reality was different: UDP traffic was filtered in the place.
> 
> So my question to the working group: who would be ready to start working on a technique to cary LISP over TCP and, even more horrible, over HTTP?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Damien Saucez
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp