IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org> Tue, 07 August 2012 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mrw@lilacglade.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 C988021F8604 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, 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 n6g639ymjGRn for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ec2-23-21-76-251.compute-1.amazonaws.com (ec2-23-21-227-93.compute-1.amazonaws.com [23.21.227.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5185521F8602 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.43.5] (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 500AC2021E; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
In-Reply-To: <2C42D4BA-608E-4A1F-8955-117E64E892FC@yegin.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:30:28 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4DB3175B-3234-42CC-8200-9FDDF1A04B5D@lilacglade.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> <075301cd7419$19557dd0$4c007970$@com> <5020688F.4060004@toshiba.co.jp> <955DC538-A1D9-4B19-B1A5-A7741EA7FB35@yegin.org> <50212516.5080902@toshiba.co.jp> <2C42D4BA-608E-4A1F-8955-117E64E892FC@yegin.org>
To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:30:31 -0000

On Aug 7, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Alper Yegin wrote:
> When used over PCP port, Bit#7 is always set to 0.
> When used over other ports, its reserved for future use (as it currently is).
> 
> 
> Latter one is more conservative about bit usage, but a bit more cumbersome. Not sure which way to go.

The problem comes in when/if PCP wants to allocate another version number.

Could we use the top nibble (4 bits) for demultiplexing, and leave PCP with a 4-bit version number, and PANA with 4 bits for future use?

Margaret

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email