Re: [pcp] single port PANA+PCP

Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org> Thu, 09 August 2012 12:44 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 1DC0421F8665 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 05:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.297, 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, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, 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 4TlOmgorNtxc for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 05:44:47 -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 88D1D21F8661 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 05:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lilac-too.home (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 ECDCE201B6; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:44:45 -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: <2F9BADF9-2D26-4651-91F2-DAAF3089B9E3@yegin.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:44:48 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9C09773C-F3CC-4BBA-AFE9-AE427DA58F6E@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> <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> <2F9BADF9-2D26-4651-91F2-DAAF3089B9E3@yegin.org>
To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 12:44:48 -0000

Hi Alper,

On Aug 9, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
> 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).

Yes, these are the two PANA-based approaches we are considering.

Someone asked, at the end of the meeting, that we also keep the PCP-Specific approach in the document, so that we could compare all three approaches at the interim conference call, so we will do that, too, since it doesn't require any significant work.

Margaret