From nobody Mon Feb 9 15:51:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: midcom@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: midcom@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04111A8AA0; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.21 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 5VmMXSxtaVRa; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5491A8A8D; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12257; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1423525570; x=1424735170; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=5wR87kWOm89Q+apJRtq5PDZoyPCZCBBjOLxsnItX6ro=; b=Ir9B97cqDMkLKi0HIvLwfZnAf90mmDFZFLYNglTmAcNwEF8xbkdXM94y et/FUZ8c+YRuDUrTfcezjcBShmaHmMjj6UN1040fksSaU1oW5Hjxxwg1H jjwdtyINyVwvqA9/O151qwQ0bDilLjS/HT161HyJmL4rjQ0+OQs0MNm9J M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvYHAExG2VStJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABcgkNDUlqDArBPjUOBYAEJhXECgR1DAQEBAQEBfIQNAQEEAQEBIApBCxALGA0dAgInMAYTiC0NtgWWVgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARePeAeCaC6BFAWEG4YMiESDY4F5gU6EcowwIoQPHTGBAgSBPAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,547,1418083200"; d="scan'208,217";a="394728185" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2015 23:46:09 +0000 Received: from [10.24.177.9] ([10.24.177.9]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t19Nk8lR018974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 23:46:09 GMT Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D65631F3-EEE0-45CC-9C30-B094ABF668C5" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: =?utf-8?Q?=F0=9F=94=93Dan_Wing?= In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645EC11F0@dfweml701-chm> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:46:07 -0800 Message-Id: <090082EF-73A7-4EDE-8847-4C9DBB441183@cisco.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645EC11F0@dfweml701-chm> To: Linda Dunbar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: "i2nsf@ietf.org" , "midcom@ietf.org" , Melinda Shore , "pcp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [midcom] [I2nsf] Comparing MIDCOM, PCP with I2NSF X-BeenThere: midcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 23:46:14 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_D65631F3-EEE0-45CC-9C30-B094ABF668C5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 PCP deals with an incoming connection (with its MAP opcode) and with = timeouts of a connection (with its PEER opcode). As they are, those = don't seem to help much a subscriber choosing some network services = function for their traffic. MAP does have a FILTER option, which = provides some filtering (ACL) capabilities, but I expect i2nsf is = looking at more advanced functionality than that? -d On 09-Feb-2015 11:38 AM, Linda Dunbar wrote:=20= > Melinda, > =20 > (CC=E2=80=99ed PCP group and MIDCOM group for wider review. ) > =20 > After studying RFCs/Charter of MIDCOM and PCP, it seems to me that PCP = is a lot more closely tied with MIDCOM than I2NSF. > =E2=80=9C The PCP working group is chartered to standardize a = client/server Port > Control Protocol (PCP) to enable an explicit dialog with a middlebox > such as a NAT or a firewall to open up and/or forward TCP or UDP port, > regardless of the location of that middlebox=E2=80=9D > =20 > =20 > MIDCOM =E2=80=9Cfocuses its attention on communication with firewalls = and network address translators (including translation between IPv6 and = IPv4).=E2=80=9D > =20 > I noticed that the detailed protocols developed by MIDCOM is quite = different from PCP. For example, the MDCOM protocol is tied closely with = the SIP agent (SIP/RTSP Proxy) to send =E2=80=9CINVITE=E2=80=9D, respond = to =E2=80=9C180Ringing=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CPort-BIND=E2=80=9D reply to = Middle Boxes. The MIDCOM protocol is very much SIP protocol oriented, = whereas the PCP is more FW/NAT device oriented. > =20 > =20 > I2NSF will focus on management of many instances of security functions = (virtual security functions), i.e. the use case described by = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pastor-i2nsf-access-usecases/ = : > =20 > Among the 3 actions listed in the Use Case draft, I can see that #2 = below can utilize some of the mechanisms developed by PCP and MIDCOM. > =20 > =20 > 1. Customer enrollment and cancellation of the subscription to a > vNSF. ( > =20 > 2. Configuration of the vNSF, based on specific configurations or > derived from common security policies defined by the operator. > =20 > 3. Retrieve and list of the vNSF functionalities, extracted from a > manifest or a descriptor. The network operator management = systems > can demand this information to offer detailed information = through > the commercial channels to the customer. > =20 > =20 > What messages & protocols by MIDCOM & PCP do you see that can be used = for I2NSF purpose? > =20 > =20 > Linda > =20 > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > I2nsf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf --Apple-Mail=_D65631F3-EEE0-45CC-9C30-B094ABF668C5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
PCP deals with an incoming connection = (with its MAP opcode) and with timeouts of a connection (with its PEER = opcode).  As they are, those don't seem to help much a subscriber = choosing some network services function for their traffic.  MAP = does have a FILTER option, which provides some filtering (ACL) = capabilities, but I expect i2nsf is looking at more advanced = functionality than that?

-d

On 09-Feb-2015 11:38 = AM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> wrote:

Melinda,

 

(CC=E2=80=99ed PCP = group and MIDCOM group for wider review. )

 

After studying RFCs/Charter of MIDCOM and PCP, it = seems to me that PCP is a lot more closely tied with MIDCOM than I2NSF.

=E2=80=9C The PCP working group is chartered to standardize a client/server = Port
Control Protocol (PCP) to enable an explicit dialog with a middlebox
such as a NAT or a firewall to open up and/or forward TCP or UDP = port,
regardless of the location of that middlebox=E2=80=9D

 

 

MIDCOM =E2=80=9Cfocuses its attention on communication with firewalls = and network address translators (including translation between IPv6 and = IPv4).=E2=80=9D

 

I  noticed that the detailed protocols = developed by MIDCOM is quite different from PCP. For example, the MDCOM = protocol is tied closely with the SIP agent (SIP/RTSP Proxy) to send = =E2=80=9CINVITE=E2=80=9D, respond to =E2=80=9C180Ringing=E2=80=9D or = =E2=80=9CPort-BIND=E2=80=9D reply to Middle Boxes. The MIDCOM protocol is very much SIP protocol oriented, whereas the PCP = is more FW/NAT device oriented.

 

 

I2NSF will focus = on management of many instances of security functions (virtual security = functions), i.e. the use case described by http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pastor-i2nsf-access-useca= ses/:

 

Among the 3 actions = listed in the Use Case draft, I can see that  #2 below can utilize = some of the mechanisms developed by PCP and MIDCOM.

 

 

   1.  Customer enrollment and cancellation of = the subscription to a

      vNSF. (

 

   2.  Configuration of the vNSF, based on = specific configurations or

      derived from common security = policies defined by the operator.

 

   3.  Retrieve and list of the vNSF = functionalities, extracted from a

      manifest or a = descriptor.  The network operator management systems

      can demand this information to = offer detailed information through

      the commercial channels to the = customer.

 

 

What messages & = protocols by MIDCOM & PCP do you see that can be used for I2NSF = purpose?

 

 

Linda

 

_______________________________________________
I2nsf = mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf


= --Apple-Mail=_D65631F3-EEE0-45CC-9C30-B094ABF668C5--