Re: [Pidloc] PIdLoc Webex

Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net> Thu, 06 December 2018 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@quantonium.net>
X-Original-To: pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C243130E4B for <pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:14:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quantonium-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CiWv33xinhLm for <pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x12e.google.com (mail-it1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBDDA130E3C for <pidloc@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id m8so17312339itk.0 for <pidloc@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:14:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quantonium-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eJEhq6DWe94QMSh+Z139ONdaKePFFBK4xImgPGaaGS0=; b=M0waNrgKZpjaGnFrFvmHGshkxf6hfUjMa3Lnm+gWAgzhT4uFboOuhzr0ODvO0Big5c /Rt9Lof5NfuhFEcqNTac8JOp0yDBP+RlpgaP8IVD/OSOMsCKCGlr/IPtZubpHfR7tyff 0mxhxGiDNEcalIjp0vtjEq5eSRePA+7JD+lvwmgcerOrR+zaPE+2FDpZQyJ+ZCltGbVi ATsLuSPU29oe3Zq1TA/JBuz2a/K4tXOL3EcOG6rfvo7mi39laS9qgGseZF8w3DFs+2OH vidNbHupBsedEOv4LJuQIV1dUNYJOIC7AbTc8naWHqDLFAnGWmJw/Cf/VAONU19dEmCx RMcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eJEhq6DWe94QMSh+Z139ONdaKePFFBK4xImgPGaaGS0=; b=mTTVETUM69jB0f/UGnNn6AQFR2ABTkOK2p7Rv9zMNXLRTCjC0qTC0EKdbFzHk9ZD8w XqWQajF2vYWWwjkSm00rGN3P0GNZWWftKUlARA/d33eJRQRPQq8jV5SfeYZu30QM5O2m trpb/IHEqq1phK41RhZrt89Xz+bbZud7ojKRrbIYkagskifQNyd6Ad+9HTs4AEZXIW6h +rIaCK9PXkOcoD16x8AKQCF+ioyacwpdKHoT1AHxd2QaIAlBQ4w8q97dAaSmmNhQa1S+ CfpaT1SaBzFnMQKj3TqVAgW1yEX09SugZ9RPyX4nqWs6EoSvFv2D63TuDXoyJvFcKMHV iSFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYFmDiaXDplD2gg/JRrMBRNTeGqjzsPxk8VmsUDfyNpayPego62 TYpX/WjAISwJVnMbcue0NU4Gfh4EX7nb2FflvsMeqA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/V5sp4w+HqR8fvGQ9piPdzQdvRdXWlLzXqCLYW3Y1XAKSicki73pjIyEi8vWjN2vi8cEdSYXmVkUWb/43EXZqU=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:b64a:: with SMTP id d10mr13063267itj.149.1544112874006; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:14:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <FRAPR01MB0801A22EEC0D55414EFFEC2ED1D00@FRAPR01MB0801.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <FRAPR01MB0801CDFD28647B7A02D700D2D1D00@FRAPR01MB0801.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <FRAPR01MB0801A452C8111F16940D4D65D1D10@FRAPR01MB0801.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <FRAPR01MB080121A9C90A6F78BBD7E4B7D1AF0@FRAPR01MB0801.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE> <95C0EB99-9A1F-4650-B764-2CC923B879A2@gmail.com> <CAPDqMeoUPaCiAF_7FeiBko0g=ofH6UcCtMAFn+1yLrPWJQfGWw@mail.gmail.com> <12D7EB58-278A-4ED4-83CE-B72F9206F054@gmail.com> <CAPDqMeqBL2O-g3-u5y2OZvsLJFG-qe_a3dc5qXSR8GaMAFsKXg@mail.gmail.com> <5CDE5968-FF04-4F8D-96F6-5CE51445B3CC@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcd3VmxEJDpr1empheFSJmNPkvPzV9jmk0Qfs7-rzrNmUw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDqMep-toyh1CJRfXRaLR-MSfshKZ9WJNBVuq3qD5iVX5KVDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAcdOoCy660qHk+_G5r2VKVx=gMa1qpyip6RsWT7+NqHaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcdOoCy660qHk+_G5r2VKVx=gMa1qpyip6RsWT7+NqHaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:14:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPDqMerhf7q3+5X3phqSSobps10xggtpS0O4-ByyjS9Un9xJvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Cc: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>, dirk.von-hugo@telekom.de, RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>, Saleem Bhatti <saleem@st-andrews.ac.uk>, Shunsuke Homma <homma.shunsuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>, erik@zededa.com, pidloc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000059799f057c5ccbb4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pidloc/Ll-BF-tr4WhSlfWw5Knk5KTPJpA>
Subject: Re: [Pidloc] PIdLoc Webex
X-BeenThere: pidloc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <pidloc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pidloc>, <mailto:pidloc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pidloc/>
List-Post: <mailto:pidloc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pidloc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pidloc>, <mailto:pidloc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 16:14:38 -0000

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 7:52 AM Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:43 AM Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 7:26 AM Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My points below.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:42 PM Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Dino,
>>>> >
>>>> > Just run your mapping system in a closed and presumably secured
>>>> > network. Every service provider can run their own mapping system and
>>>> > there's no need or value to build global mapping databases.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course. That has always been an opiton and many enterprises are
>>>> doing that today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am confused.
>>> Are you (Tom, Dino) saying that service providers are already using
>>> IdLoc protocols?
>>>
>>
>> Network virtualization is IdLoc where virtual address is an identifier
>> and physical address is locator.
>>
>
> You mean they use ILA?
> I thought most of them use L2 protocols.
> Well this is more of nvo3 issue :-)
>

They are using ILA, GRE, VXLAN, etc. Some are L2, bigger ones (e.g. Google
cloud) are L3.


>
>
>> Cloud providers have deployed this in various forms for a long time now.
>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Cloud providers?
>
> So we are not talking about network operators?
>

A mapping system is needed in both contexts, so makes sense to leverage a
common solution. Privacy properties are a bit different since network
providers are serving end users directly.


> Behcet
>
>> If not, what do they use their mapping system for?
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>>> >> That’s the best any design can hope for. The IP header can only be
>>>> sent in the clear.
>>>> >>
>>>> > In order to communicate with Internet hosts plain text addresses are
>>>> > used in packets. The are identifiers in idloc terminology and they are
>>>>
>>>> In headers in particular. I hope you agree it can be avoided in
>>>> payloads.
>>>>
>>>> > exposed to the whole Internet. It's the privacy properties of these
>>>> > that are of interest. For instance, today many service providers
>>>> > assign a /64 to their users. So, that means that if a third party on
>>>> > the Internet observes two flow with source addresses sharing the same
>>>> > sixty-four bit prefix they can deduce that the source is the same (the
>>>> > same user in case of personal devices). What is really needed for
>>>> > privacy is to use a different uncorrelatable address per flow. Under
>>>>
>>>> Agree.
>>>>
>>>> > certain conditions, CGNAT provides that today which is why law
>>>> > enforcement agencies are terrified of it. In lieu of NAT, idloc could
>>>> > key to provide this privacy without resorting to NAT. See
>>>> > draft-herbert-ipv6-prefix-address-privacy-00.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wait a minute.
>>> We expect to attack and solve this problem in Pidloc with all of you
>>> guys active participation.
>>>
>>> However, solution proposals are of course welcome.
>>>
>>> Behcet
>>>
>>>> > Tom
>>>>
>>>> Understand. But randomized addresses assign to tail site can still be
>>>> achieved without the high-cost of managing a CGNAT. You only need to route
>>>> back to that randomized/ephemeral address for a short period of time. In
>>>> fact, the ISP can withdraw the route when it wants the tail site to use
>>>> another address.
>>>>
>>>> Dino
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>