Re: [Pidloc] PIdLoc Webex

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Thu, 06 December 2018 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
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 9726D12DDA3 for <pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:52:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 uAX_vSP8BIep for <pidloc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:52:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (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 CC30812875B for <pidloc@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:52:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id z18so1467282wmc.4 for <pidloc@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:52:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=hybR/XudROF14p5Ja0SVXv41KT9i356RqQfZ7aU299Y=; b=fcujmGvfWh7uaI0MoeCTE8JA5Jdk9HJAJxDrdFXLemAofSiS2IAg8HC/JDfDN+2lD8 +3uYztCd8JbeirQYas7OHq08V95m3/JPf4teg9F2zoN52MpdNLvzD0fxzX0OusIB9cOM ILysiM0YdYa+9pucMk+iNpzs9JNXzLfm5T3LjCGa/n8s4vTdnRFp3Gp1ciOuUNvNyJTL eSOionsoY7t1UL+2jD3FNGr78vvZrt9AKGVmKhgY7t24q7CbNRIhkO9NP9XLvKc+Z/yp iiAMMJONU3OrHPWHhrZU7gWSkkAt8T+10ay2IeeIcssuzBdDxn45vhDyd67S1BMZOhOn uuGg==
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:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hybR/XudROF14p5Ja0SVXv41KT9i356RqQfZ7aU299Y=; b=DdwBG2PtOrNkCIjWhvzQ6TRWmkEGgr8yT43RD+Rq0iyNCoz1h8cCQA9wQpdYI82IpC u3ZY7rXSqjNpjVwgAgtLKh/26ZYeaS0887RzZMpS75xIkOWVkSxcaLGDBz4ld90jlSa6 XI0u9+UKZtIzwURUR9bOkPYecWZgOpFwmzQ3xrX6+zY+DeSNo8EbWv+xcuBbe4qGVHN2 DTj3sOuwKaD5WZaYZJYhFZ3/HmiULwJHAVVtQBajdm8Dh5FLMsp6IscZAkpTxkQF/9dL DzX/UQMZ5RrO4VdpGwWVrdCG52Ror7PJD80gZrdYhxm9aVlS3JEHcW1aiAU4q/oOMcsl SeLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYXROpMUsrAKPmTRq5Ng+dq/v04vjYKqxZkSzJ751jBsraMNwJ0 1UAWrPuP5TdC7/tXi8OyZxDoSJoU+NLDSjscpZ0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Xt/RZch9pukUoH/LglTku9ogONuX1h9kvZslxiWEUe88I4VsfL2tROB/OEmU84S3GDxhZwNMaY1kg5F0zJL3Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:d7d3:: with SMTP id o202mr14040517wmg.135.1544111535265; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:52:15 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDqMep-toyh1CJRfXRaLR-MSfshKZ9WJNBVuq3qD5iVX5KVDw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:52:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcdOoCy660qHk+_G5r2VKVx=gMa1qpyip6RsWT7+NqHaQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@quantonium.net>
Cc: sarikaya@ieee.org, 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="0000000000008d9afd057c5c7b83"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pidloc/wxVkuY4G93pX2QE2iH-Fmo1S-zg>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 07:54:17 -0800
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 15:52:23 -0000

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 :-)



> Cloud providers have deployed this in various forms for a long time now.
>
>>
>>

Cloud providers?

So we are not talking about network operators?

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
>>>
>>>
>>>