Re: [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication?
"Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <guyingjie@huawei.com> Thu, 31 March 2011 13:58 UTC
Return-Path: <guyingjie@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 030863A6B1A for <opsawg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 nosqy26+o4bR for <opsawg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3523A6B10 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIX00048DJ6IS@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for opsawg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:59:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIX000OQDJ6HC@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for opsawg@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:59:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from SZXEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.59) by szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:59:25 +0800
Received: from SZXEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.109]) by szxeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([fe80::75b7:3db9:fedc:a56d%13]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:59:29 +0800
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:59:29 +0000
From: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <guyingjie@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4D94857D.4070508@gmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [172.24.2.40]
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-id: <A27496C192613C44A82D819E1B98DB57089096FF@SZXEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-language: zh-CN
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Thread-topic: [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication?
Thread-index: AcvvkMykJBzx0S+MTSyX4LneAlwGcgAD8rf7//+MhICAAIkLZg==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
References: <A27496C192613C44A82D819E1B98DB570890967A@SZXEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <A27496C192613C44A82D819E1B98DB57089096C0@SZXEML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4D94857D.4070508@gmail.com>
Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication?
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:58:03 -0000
Sure, we definitely want to reuse existing protocol as much as possible. I agree with you that MIDCOM provide valuable information for future research. And thank you very much for taking MIDCOM to our discussion :) ________________________________________ 发件人: Melinda Shore [melinda.shore@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2011年3月31日 21:45 到: Yingjie Gu(yingjie) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication? Yingjie Gu(yingjie) wrote: > It's different with Dynamic Information Migration, which is from one middlebox to another. > Put Dynamic Information Migration into MIDCOM scenario, we will find that dynamic information migration doesn't touch MIDCOM agent. It may (or may not!) be possible to reuse some or all of the midcom MIB. It's also worth noting that it's a pretty general information for conveying information about resources to middleboxes from a trusted entity and that you'd be able to reuse substantial portions of it. I think it's worth considering reusing what you can because you're going to be dealing with an extremely difficult problem that I don't believe has been dealt with elsewhere in the IETF, which is detecting in the network that the connection has moved and where it's moved to. I think that's going to be a non-trivial piece of work, and new, and you might want to think about how you're going to marshall your volunteer resources. Melinda
- Re: [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication? Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication? Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication? Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [OPSAWG] OPSAWGRFC for Firewall communication? Wes Hardaker
- Re: [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication? Melinda Shore
- Re: [OPSAWG] RFC for Firewall communication? Yingjie Gu(yingjie)