Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics

["Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>]

> If you are suggesting that mobile operators should buy this product to
> block Skype, you are probably on the wrong mailing list.

I am not selling this product. I am just saying that these products are offered to Mobile Operators to detect Port Misuse/for other security purposes like detecting viruses and hence the Mobile Network will have a firewall/IPS that will do DPI. My argument is IPv6 Firewall/IPS in various modes like content filtering, Application Visibility and Control when deployed in Mobile Network will have sessions just like NAT but a different purpose and will have timeout mechanism. PCP can also be used to avoid keep-alive for Firewall sessions. It's up to the Mobile Operator policy to permit the flow or not, honor the PCP request or not to permit certain flow.

--Tiru.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:39 PM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
> 
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> I know of one large USA mobile operator that is not SPI firewalling
> or tracking state for ipv6 mobiels, so this is not a problem for them.
> >> If operators choose to statefully inspect user traffic, those cost
> and limitations are assumed as part of the cost and service definition
> from the mobile
> >> operator.
> >> IMHO, SPI FW in ipv6 is not prudent or cost justified in mobile
> networks.
> >
> >
> http://www.bluecoat.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/Content_Fil
> tering_for_Mobile_Operators.pdf
> > offers URL filtering based on user profile, claims to block Skype if
> sent over port 80/443
> (http://www.bluecoat.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/How_Mobile
> _Operators_Can_Control_Skype.1.pdf), block viruses/worm. This product
> is targeted for Mobile Operators.
> >
> 
> Since you just sent URLs without an explanation, i am not sure the
> intent of your email.
> 
> If you are suggesting that mobile operators should buy this product to
> block Skype, you are probably on the wrong mailing list.
> 
> If you are suggesting mobile operators should buy this product to
> block Skype and then use PCP to allow Skype, ....  Not sure that will
> get much traction either.
> 
> CB
> 
> > --Tiru.
> >
> >
> > From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 8:41 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
> >
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2012 7:13 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Cameron,
> >>
> >> Cameron Byrne wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I asked around in Vancouver about PCP, and all the operators i
> spoke to said
> >> >no-plans, no motivation.  But, that was a small sample.
> >>
> >> This is probably a fair assessment about the concrete plans. Most
> mobile operators don't even follow IETF much, so I doubt that they have
> even heard about PCP so far. There are however a few operators, where
> at least the research and standardization people have been interested
> in PCP (as witnessed by http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pcp-
> mobile-deployment/). I think some operators are also proposing PCP to
> be included in the 3GPP specs (release 12). It is hard to say how much
> that means in the real world, but at least I'd expect we could find a
> few operators willing to do real-network trials withing the next 12
> months.
> >>
> >> Personally I see PCP as a very useful tool in the cellular access
> environment, for probing the NAT/FW timers and in the best case even
> setting them. It will be a major chicken-and-egg situation between
> apps, mobile OS's and the networks, to get anything into use. I think
> we should still do our best to overcome it. I agree that RTCWeb or
> anyone else should not rely on PCP (or any similar mechanim), but have
> the ability to make use of it if it happens to be available.
> >>
> >> I'm unconvinced IPv6 will help at all in this case. How do you know
> how long the FW on the path will keep its state up without keepalives?
> It will probably be the same as for NATs: In some networks timeout is 2
> minutes, while in others 60 minutes. Having something like PCP to check
> out that it indeed is 60 min. would be extremely helpful. While most
> app developers might not be willing/able to optimize for
> battery/mobile, there are already some that are doing a good job. So
> there is hope that the new mechanisms would get some traction.
> >>
> > I know of one large USA mobile operator that is not SPI firewalling
> or tracking state for ipv6 mobiels, so this is not a problem for them.
> > If operators choose to statefully inspect user traffic, those cost
> and limitations are assumed as part of the cost and service definition
> from the mobile operator.
> > IMHO, SPI FW in ipv6 is not prudent or cost justified in mobile
> networks.
> > CB
> >> Markus
> >>
> >>
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf
> >> >Of ext Cameron Byrne
> >> >Sent: 06 August, 2012 01:22
> >> >To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> >> >Cc: Randell Jesup; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> >Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
> >> >
> >> >On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> >> ><[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >>> Fyi. I have not seen any traction for pcp anywhere in the mobile
> space.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-pcp-mobile-deployment-01
> describes
> >> >usage of PCP in Mobile Deployments.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Tiru.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yep, that's  an I-D.
> >> >
> >> >And, it says things like "Without
> >> >   the particular considerations , PCP may not provide desirable
> >> >   outcomes.  Some default behaviours may even cause negative
> impacts or
> >> >   system failures in a mobile environment.  "
> >> >
> >> >Got an operators with a timeline on supporting it?  How about a
> mobile OS
> >> >that plans to support PCP, because you will need both.  And, that
> would be
> >> >interesting information.
> >> >
> >> >I asked around in Vancouver about PCP, and all the operators i
> spoke to said
> >> >no-plans, no motivation.  But, that was a small sample.
> >> >
> >> >In any event, my only point is that RTCWEB should NOT be counting
> on PCP.  If
> >> >PCP is a tool you have, use it.  My point: it is not a tool you
> have.
> >> >
> >> >CB
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >rtcweb mailing list
> >> >[e-mail]
> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb