IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Thu, 26 March 2015 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847581A90F5; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 SE2WFSJPUuSO; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A99D51A8A07; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6278; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427344476; x=1428554076; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=AJTNKB8VT2QpgfSSck/lCT7Dy66MiYYQj2LTpuaGabo=; b=Fi5+1EqrJoCfmBJvNJAprvjxW8GhhjWin41E6ZRHYTO9vlLZdNbJjTE3 7bBBPPpprhkzUiDdId+n7ecNnsjk8oXpvgYf+upr6e5DWDmRksZM/OF/0 ooeDNba7Ofc4Vz0WgqrNqS3EDcaj1fBi6XtWvkmDswz2UTqafZ97/7END g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DACQATjBNV/5NdJa1cgkNDUloEgw6/fYgwAhyBRUwBAQEBAQF9hBQBAQEEIwpMEAIBCBEEAQELHQMCAgIwFAkIAgQBDQUIiCewEJogAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4shhEUxBgGCaC+BFgWQUJ4bIoNub4FEfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,469,1422921600"; d="scan'208,217";a="135495946"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2015 04:34:24 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2Q4YOid029764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:34:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.80]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:34:24 -0500
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>, "spud@ietf.org" <spud@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD
Thread-Index: AQHQZ0P9fkfGXDN/UUCaOAQAWpF0oZ0uK8Ow
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 04:34:22 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A366D0A57@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <CAD62q9XopDJ7PFA9Hz7R2nV6OcwhQA=T=oGwQAN2_0EFPZvwzg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD62q9XopDJ7PFA9Hz7R2nV6OcwhQA=T=oGwQAN2_0EFPZvwzg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.61.161]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A366D0A57xmbrcdx10ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/DwGpMNWKclIgekjxXNwx86fsGd4>
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD
X-BeenThere: spud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 26 Mar 2015 04:34:38 -0000

Yes, PCP can be used to communicate with middle boxes to open and close pinholes; PCP also handles attacks like attacker closing the pinholes opened by the victim or attacker opening pinholes on behalf of victim to launch DDOS attacks, allow only authorized endpoints to open/close pinholes etc.

-Tiru


From: Spud [mailto:spud-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Falk
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:08 AM
To: spud@ietf.org
Subject: [Spud] PCP vs. SPUD

If we take SPUD's goals at their most minimal, as expressed by Ted, of enabling passage of encrypted traffic through middleboxes, can someone explain why PCP is not sufficient?

--aaron

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email