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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Thu, 21 July 2016 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 C96C812D520 for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.288
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 ssXzvMdxBmqW for <spud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E5912D5F7 for <spud@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id DA697A2; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:38:53 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1469115533; bh=rnDxXh2SK8CGuJ/vnWxBYoyq7WCjQ0nwc4SMEEMOkdQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bDGOdrtj/dKxsj7vQ/Rpe8T0fRq7WOYddIKHRBPgzkX/amgA+j8g57+WAvrn9ACvZ RNSs10jFoJmRbw4OUMmLv1ON1OpHB67kIc5rNieLqmQugbXnW3+S8Phgr3nFTjEcKW 4KGnxB0tL3Bm9kevTYoCR6mkMYtDyco3lujIzoo0=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3123A1; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:38:53 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 17:38:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Frode Kileng <frodek@tele.no>
In-Reply-To: <a27f9139-22e5-1e40-7800-c7e0295b8740@tele.no>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1607211737240.2309@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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> <a27f9139-22e5-1e40-7800-c7e0295b8740@tele.no>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spud/qkbrdIclbXSor8tjmJnGoC5JDY8>
Cc: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "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 15:38:58 -0000

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Frode Kileng wrote:

> Yes. And if needed, any return traffic can be used as an indicator that 
> something is consenting to this traffic.

I don't understand this comment. You're getting SYN+ACK backscatter, if 
you forward them you'll melt the mobile network. The only way to discern 
if the user consents to the traffic, is to forward them.

How can this possibly work?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se