Re: [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFFE12D774 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 AuxkfO8Y9fIP for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx142.netapp.com (mx142.netapp.com [216.240.21.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2055912B031 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,399,1464678000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="125048215"
Received: from hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.39]) by mx142-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2016 08:33:09 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:33:07 -0700
Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::2c76:6bc2:2216:a24d%21]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:33:07 -0700
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Thread-Topic: [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management
Thread-Index: AQHR42RpGk3XmQdBTUelMR4DQNA8/aAjeOuA
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:33:07 +0000
Message-ID: <FD62252A-85F2-49A6-ADBF-4F85E9357182@netapp.com>
References: <43a39476-9327-87ef-204c-d7c614a80669@tele.no> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607211643150.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se> <0f504f66-1df8-e2da-b55a-3e44e67d0912@tele.no> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607211712500.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se> <3F114FAB-6F70-4908-939C-1DA5661B2113@netapp.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607211724010.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607211724010.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.120.60.37]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_124E3C75-FB65-4714-A444-0D703E02B695"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/2mSme4rcfi07vOq8_okvtTmTt1k>
Cc: Frode Kileng <frodek@tele.no>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] No. Operators don't need SPUD for mobile network management
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Protocol Underneath Datagrams <spud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spud/>
List-Post: <mailto:spud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spud>, <mailto:spud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:42:51 -0000

On 2016-07-21, at 17:27, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> If there are no flags, I can't differentiate an incoming new connection Internet->UE (that I want to allow), from a backscatter packet (that I want to drop).

We probably have different opinions on how important it is for a firewall to be able to drop backscatter vs. the ability for an app to benefit from 0-RTT. (Cue Lorenzo).

Lars