Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Tue, 07 August 2012 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4F921F8767 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 3Bg6KQdk9h+A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D21921F8799 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tireddy@cisco.com; l=6994; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344356406; x=1345566006; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Np581ndab8H/XIFDmhObw8uOf0VCTBDVj0d+wP81Y4c=; b=jCn95njulqha0bLzsMofQ3AZ1XHe+T4EusXmuPPbyODKIojdFZjtat3O jyns7dAHs7bL/ZYl0BvvUxLpYT6BLWfMlhHGxT+FuVi/+XDY60c4gB7J8 9yQWohBbsyt+J04jtlEa87nVVQD/Uinyb9QOH+C8ktpPnUejbHErGOCVV 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAMs/IVCtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFuWWBB4IgAQEBAwEBAQEPASc0CwUHBAIBCA4DBAEBAQoUCQchBgsUCQgCBA4FCBqHXAMGBgubVZZ+DYlOiitkBYV7YAOTdYJniXWDHYFmgl+BXw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,728,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="109219514"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2012 16:20:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q77GK36k004979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:20:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.216]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:20:02 -0500
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
Thread-Index: Ac1w1ovfvzUgFxvbR0qnhkeGI2kOuAAVj+eAAAB2nYAAdXC7AAAK960AAAlqvrAACyyyAABTg5cAAAIELQAACfK/kP//wIOAgABTl8A=
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:20:02 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A1477E5A0@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <038b01cd70d6$8c5bc870$a5135950$@com> <CABkgnnW+pCnDZuYHDj6=7xdqRwM6AO48RrC1xhMrvFZbUBgtyw@mail.gmail.com> <04ff01cd7104$be09bed0$3a1d3c70$@com> <501E1E40.8070203@jesup.org> <CAD6AjGTrd0d9dm5HC2xr=ZAU2DmU55Sdkm6rH8NO4sJMMuLScA@mail.gmail.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A1477C17F@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAD6AjGTEH+12WfKavx7H_xpfeynEL6W33L9nD98_vztVodGTuA@mail.gmail.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB76228412C@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <CAD6AjGQyMjK0paM6v3m_DTxBk7AEpQQYaqo8NkZKxUd6eJ_YKg@mail.gmail.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A1477E4F7@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAD6AjGToC86QjCaRNxFCcJS3cdb-j4grsuEaZkqKBrchhJLvow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGToC86QjCaRNxFCcJS3cdb-j4grsuEaZkqKBrchhJLvow@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.85.252]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19090.005
x-tm-as-result: No--68.006000-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "randell-ietf@jesup.org" <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "phdgang@gmail.com" <phdgang@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 16:20:09 -0000

> 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:cb.list6@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:39 PM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> Cc: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com; rtcweb@ietf.org; phdgang@gmail.com;
> randell-ietf@jesup.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
> 
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> <tireddy@cisco.com> 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:cb.list6@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 8:41 PM
> > To: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
> > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org; Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); phdgang@gmail.com;
> randell-ietf@jesup.org
> > Subject: RE: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
> >
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2012 7:13 AM, <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> 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: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> >> >Of ext Cameron Byrne
> >> >Sent: 06 August, 2012 01:22
> >> >To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> >> >Cc: Randell Jesup; rtcweb@ietf.org; phdgang@gmail.com
> >> >Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT behavior heuristics
> >> >
> >> >On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
> >> ><tireddy@cisco.com> 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
> >> >rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb