IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [savi] AD review of draft-ietf-savi-fcfs

Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com> Thu, 13 October 2011 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CFE21F8B62 for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Otx2ai75rEIj for <savi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF11621F8B5C for <savi@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so177840gyh.31 for <savi@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OfuEB+otX6PdLT8majmiFzbVDBkYxwXprO6ZyWTCJvo=; b=eVXqgK9rYbatzWBmdyhQz0ZR/B30unVr6KljDhtvdnouR09ezFuECrpb4np+U3hjAr Lbaj1DqJ3d3C2pdLC5RI1r1ab3q/1fLqBWntyAWqsvSMA2iAeYJMRKJ4vKmG6lKDY6/X 9ze4cxv9TeFhMcNpkm97Dv5ErzelAawXuamYI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.128.161 with SMTP id f21mr5793015yhi.67.1318521446259; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.41.12 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA7e52pG7cOyTVUsiPc-W+xusEcKAOzo2MGRnNkno4YoY_zLhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DC19DD5.4040209@piuha.net> <4E970019.4000806@it.uc3m.es> <CAA7e52pG7cOyTVUsiPc-W+xusEcKAOzo2MGRnNkno4YoY_zLhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:57:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA7e52o2bOuvS2M-t8z7febN0pV0MPtLBYMgSwVxUierrzBmPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>
To: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: draft-ietf-savi-fcfs@tools.ietf.org, SAVI Mailing List <savi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [savi] AD review of draft-ietf-savi-fcfs
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/savi>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:57:27 -0000

Sorry, in fact, proxy SEND checks validity of SENDized ND exchanges
(draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-05, section 5.2.1, 1.B). So, proxy SEND
could be used but:
- proxy SEND requires hosts, in the network, are compliant with proxy SEND
- proxy SEND is not "transparent" and so SAVI device will lose its
"invisibility" feature
- proxy SEND requires many actions (certificate management, IP packet
modification, etc) and I am not sure that SAVI device will be able to
do this as in common use cases the SAVI device is a L2 device.
- proxy SEND would need an API with FCFS SAVI

Best regards.

JMC.

2011/10/13 Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/10/13 marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>:
>> Hi Jari,
>>
>> Please find the replies below marked with MB>
>>
>>
>> El 04/05/11 20:41, Jari Arkko escribió:
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>>>> So, when SEND is deployed, it is recommended to use SEND SAVI
>>>> [I-D.ietf-savi-send
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-savi-fcfs-09#ref-I-D.ietf-savi-send>]
>>>> rather than FCFS SAVI."
>>>
>>> Is there some reason why proxy SEND cannot be employed here?
>>>
>>
>> MB> I will let Alberto to reply this one.
>
> This text comes from my review as shepherd of this document.
>
> As proxy SEND doesn't permit to check the validity of SENDized ND
> exchanges, IMHO, proxy SEND cannot be used easily.
>
> Best regards.
>
> JMC.
>
>>
>> Regards, marcelo
>>
>>
>>> Jari
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> savi mailing list
>> savi@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email