Re: [tcmtf] Answers to possible questions in the BOF

Hi all,

Few days ago Julian talked about TCM-TF's security and now I've read  
in the link included by Dan, saying that the gain obtained when  
multiplexing Ipsec-encrypted packets is 20-to-1. We have been looking  
for more information about this issue and thinking about a way to  
reduce the needed  bandwidth in IPsec flows.

The main idea is to find a way to change the authentication of the  
individual packets and merge all of them in a unique authentication.  
Thus, instead of using 20 IPsec tunnels, we would have a single tunnel  
including 20 flows. Is this something similar than how Cisco gets the  
improvement?

José Luis

Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> ha escrito:

>
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:
>
>> Question 4: Is TCM-TF interesting for the Industry? Should the IETF  
>>  standardize this?
>>
>> Answer:
>>
>> 1) TCM-TF intends to update RFC4170, which optimizes RTP VoIP   
>> traffic. So if RFC4170 was interesting, why not updating it?
>>
>> 2) TCM-TF can be useful in order to save bandwidth in many cases:
>>
>> - Aggregation network of *network operators*: We are saving   
>> bandwidth by optimizing and putting together traffic flows. Is this  
>>  interesting for a network operator? What about overprovisioning?   
>> The idea is that there are places and moments in which a number of   
>> flows based on small packets are in the same place and at the same   
>> moment. Then, TCM-TF can be applied in order to provide   
>> flexibility. We are not optimizing the overall Internet traffic, we  
>>  are optimizing specific flows with very tight delay requirements,   
>> which network operators have to take care of in a special way.
>> www.huawei.com/ilink/en/download/HW_193034
>>
>> - *End to end* optimization: Nowadays, many appliances are used to   
>> connect remote offices of the same company (creating a VPN). So if   
>> a tunnel exists, why not optimizing this traffic when possible? We   
>> would save bandwidth in the access network, where it can be scarce.
>>
>> - Wireless and satellite scenarios.
>
> "Cisco adds IP multiplexing to mobile satellite package", April   
> 2012,   
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/040912-cisco-ip-multiplexing-258082.html
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Any other thoughts? Any other scenarios in mind? Potential beneficiaries?
>
> Some networks, today, use cRTP (RFC2508) on their access links.    
> This gives bandwidth savings on the access link, but consumes   
> considerable CPU horsepower on the aggregation router (to perform   
> cRTP), but provides no bandwidth savings across the network core.    
> If, instead, the bandwidth could be saved on the access link, across  
>  the core, and on the far-end access link -- all without the CPU   
> impact on the aggregation router -- it is a considerable win.
>
> -d
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jose
>>
>> De: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En   
>> nombre de Jose Saldana
>> Enviado el: lunes, 24 de junio de 2013 13:00
>> Para: tcmtf@ietf.org
>> Asunto: [tcmtf] Answers to possible questions in the BOF
>>
>> I would like to start a thread about possible questions people may   
>> ask in the BOF. Obviously, we also need answers, so we should   
>> cooperate.
>>
>> This is different from the "questions to ask in the BOF". This will  
>>  be discussed separately.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Jose
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcmtf mailing list
>> tcmtf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>
>