[pcp] single port PANA+PCP

Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org> Thu, 09 August 2012 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
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 0E0F721F86D1 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 02:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.269
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IZx0D791Dqtx for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 02:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FACB21F86CA for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 02:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.4] (88.247.135.202.static.ttnet.com.tr [88.247.135.202]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Mgbk7-1TLlT33SKd-00NWTY; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 05:32:21 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
In-Reply-To: <028801cd75d6$c5765490$5062fdb0$@com>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:31:56 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F9BADF9-2D26-4651-91F2-DAAF3089B9E3@yegin.org>
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>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:H7U+zEK3fNBXiciTZ99y7lN0+OviywCQbkEjk+iXb0r 2XfbLhRn/V/gNawiwAPr54wfysDDoujaBd3pzSJybMb8F214U7 YBdVpWqGWGidjTOrNMTedo/3T+pgZUH6QHAG9HljzmUr+Bs8QU ItT+6gLOJc4iKsOmtSF4e5jdm4A7Y2xMPavIXPYOgHmqyyRazc VkckJfVc2bi0/NkD9oo4Jz54lT1lDSpBjC44n09cyR3Dx8zPfP DLKPohVKpVZH2tCUASJsOvbzmgFCm/Y0+Zw1eBBDNuK8lT6cxO 4jzXGjMPX5CShv9TodhBwGwUZGx1khd7DbtV7fvFUHQCTyeXQt oPSqUuGOPWW58ysAYj/BQaLw5deOq4+l5qGBYijlI65x321qe+ oadxULCHuRivg==
Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman' <mrw@lilacglade.org>, pcp@ietf.org
Subject: [pcp] single port PANA+PCP
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, 09 Aug 2012 09:32:24 -0000

> If the PCP server doesn't want authentication, I believe we can always 
> rely on a PCP error response if for PANA messages and for 
> PCP-encapsulated (tunneled) PANA messages (which I believe are the two
> proposals being considered) 

My understand is that there are two alternatives we are considering for using PANA for PCP authentication over the same PCP port:

1. Encapsulate PANA over PCP (e.g., define a dedicated PCP option that encapsulate PANA packet).
2. Define a way to demux PANA and PCP even when they operate over the same port (no encapsulation).

Right?

I might have lost track, just seeking confirmation…

Alper