IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

"Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <zhangdacheng@huawei.com> Thu, 16 August 2012 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangdacheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2297721F8570 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.863
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.736, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eskK1F7xDb8N for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8550221F84E4 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfwdlp03-ep.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AJL56118; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:52:10 -0700
Received: from SZXEML436-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.64) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 01:52:09 -0700
Received: from SZXEML528-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.229]) by szxeml436-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.64]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:52:04 +0800
From: "Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <zhangdacheng@huawei.com>
To: Yoshihiro Ohba <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
Thread-Index: Ac12W6ER1F5Ai0qa4kawmCOKzP6BvgAAVNUQ//+IUID/9Zu6kIAUXgMA//8k6gA=
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:52:03 +0000
Message-ID: <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E305AADC2@szxeml528-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6EC381@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <7FE144CF-00E3-4451-8CBE-A6A684DB7CC4@yegin.org> <067d01cd73fd$765a6c50$630f44f0$@com> <D6D2DEED-C35A-45AB-8B72-96195C308DB9@yegin.org> <57FF0F8E-1B86-410F-8B6B-C4893A28222F@lilacglade.org> <BB72B80F-0622-4A5B-A985-79D8AED13E0B@apple.com> <003b01cd7587$a111b760$e3352620$@com> <15990E87-2D59-49B1-845C-2A4CB5A1FBD6@lilacglade.org> <008801cd758f$3fd306e0$bf7914a0$@com> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E2CE65225@szxeml528-mbx.china.huawei.com> <028801cd75d6$c5765490$5062fdb0$@com> <tsla9y4gptp.fsf@mit.edu> <04c901cd7658$37a740c0$a6f5c240$@com> <tslboikexlv.fsf@mit.edu> <054001cd765d$54c0f3e0$fe42dba0$@com> <0F259BA1-CEFF-4346-AFE5-3D33BB0CF0CC@lilacglade.org> <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E2CE756EE@szxeml528-mbs.china.huawei.com> <502C6BF0.3030400@toshiba.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <502C6BF0.3030400@toshiba.co.jp>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.49]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:54:35 -0000

> 
> Here is a brief comparison on both PANA-based schemes:
> 
> Encapsulation/tunneling approach:
> - Pros: No impact on PANA specification
> - Cons: Encapsulation overhead
About this Con. Maybe we can remove the redundant information in a pana packet and only transport the necessary part in a pcp packet. Therefore, after receiving the PCP packet, the receiver can re-construct the pana packet.

Dacheng

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email