Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

Here is a brief comparison on both PANA-based schemes:

Encapsulation/tunneling approach:
- Pros: No impact on PANA specification
- Cons: Encapsulation overhead

Demultiplexing/port-sharing approach:
- Pros: No encapsulation overhead
- Cons: Impact on PANA specification (an Update of RFC 5191 is needed
on the use of "Reserved" field.)

Hope this helps,
Yoshihiro Ohba

(2012/08/16 11:47), Zhangdacheng (Dacheng) wrote:
> Have we got any conclusions on two approaches?  Or we can just support 
> the two options in the draft for the moment and briefly compare their 
> pros and cons, can we?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dcheng
> 
> *From:*pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *Margaret Wasserman
> *Sent:* Friday, August 10, 2012 3:21 AM
> *To:* Dan Wing
> *Cc:* pcp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication
> 
> On Aug 9, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
> 
>         If I'm updating security policy on a firewall I want to be able to
> 
>         audit whether that actually happened.  That requires
>         authentication.
> 
> 
>     You are saying a PCP client would only want to update firewall
>     policies
>     if the PCP server supports authentication, otherwise it would tell the
>     user that it cannot enable the webcam, Internet-connected NAS,
>     Internet-connected printer, etc.?
> 
> I wont presume to guess what Sam is thinking...
> 
> However, I am thinking that there will be some clients  that are 
> configured to perform authentication for every request.  For example, 
> there is no reason for a PCP proxy, running in an environment where 
> authentication is required to do a THIRD-PARTY request, to perform a 
> useless round-trip for every THIRD-PARTY request it issues.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> 