IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] We need LISP over HTTP!

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@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 826051A87AF for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:18:10 -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 B55EWExrRuQ1 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x235.google.com (mail-pa0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::235]) (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 B3ED61A87C9 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so47248180pac.2 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:18:07 -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=00rxNd0oYLsA9DIpMBPINpn5Q25H774ECY5Nz7aRTzY=; b=xDlDb+tE1gglo6ccaqB55+eaczPR/7Dyy0tZf+WLh4agTkMuWE5afb9aOPO593k/4j uUn02NkCLno2uT0RFCknYIzyi0IYFdMVP61rk6naCNJtjSLM8Em0BoTdvp20aXshnkhO P0qyxd4TS4mgF6sHDpN/pX0fBgsyL535Y/bkuKd6ckrOOc0SYrJr5bkTVP6MHM/C5tKk PLL6eIBtoh1sIiKbUw4LoO8UfBcYPFXbabGI7QXJjr4BBUCccwOkepmL0lGpbVEFimcc nsEEMI4LEms/URewNbvOT7UQ7JcKYwQ3IcqYkKv3LLw6d3wuMRfqjimmNr1zI5YlO9Sn R0Og==
X-Received: by 10.66.117.200 with SMTP id kg8mr6117100pab.37.1443633487386; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.169.113.83] (173-11-119-245-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.119.245]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id te7sm1720322pbc.87.2015.09.30.10.18.06 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3366C8BB-A044-4F7F-9E86-785222BA1839@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:18:04 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4D1987E-7E50-4CE8-85A8-B8A915FDCCF2@gmail.com>
References: <74B6E61C-5E38-4CA4-BD6C-90E9B6F7C4E9@gmail.com> <F061CEB6876F904F8EA6D6B92877731C38FF4174@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com> <3366C8BB-A044-4F7F-9E86-785222BA1839@gmail.com>
To: Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/x0Op0BCiSuiS_zDJw9ZKo5whXlM>
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 17:18:10 -0000

How about doing it via the DNS port on UDP?

Dino

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Damien Saucez <damien.saucez@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> lisp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email