Re: [pcp] Revising PANA side-by-side approach

Hi Margaret,

(2012/10/05 22:07), Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Hi Yoshi,
>
> The concern that I have with this approach is that it seems short-sited to me...
>
> If we expect PANA to be used as a generic authentication mechanism, rather than being used specifically for network access authentication, I think we need to do two things:
>
> 1) Provide a clear explanation of what parts of PANA will be used with PCP.   For example, the notion of a network access enforcement point doesn't really make sense in a PCP context.

I agree that EP is not needed in the context of PCP authentication. We 
probably do not need
to use 'I' (IP Reconfiguration) and 'P' (Ping) flags either.

>   
> 2) Describe a clean mechanism that allows PANA to be used for authentication of other protocols.
>
> Overloading a single bit in the PCP version field, because it happens to coincide with a flag bit in PANA doesn't seem like a method that will work for other protocols, and I am concerned that it doesn't provide a clean basis for moving forward.

The single bit use is specific to PCP.  If some other protocol operating 
over port X
wants to multiplex PANA, then a different set of bits may be used for 
port X.    I would like
to hear from you if there is a cleaner way.

Yoshihiro Ohba

> Margaret
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:18 PM, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
>
>> Since PCP Version 0 is used by draft-cheshire-nat-pmp, I plan to
>> revise PANA side-by-side approach I-D (draft-ohba-pcp-pana) to use
>> Bit 0 instead of Bits 5-6-7. The new logic is that when bit 0 is 1 it's
>> PANA,
>> otherwise it's PCP and alike. If there is an issue with the new logic,
>> please let me know.
>>
>> I also plan to submit PANA encasulation approach as a separate I-D
>> before the next interim meeting.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yoshihiro Ohba
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pcp mailing list
>> pcp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>