Subject: [EME] NUTSS -- Addressing Transition

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:57:36 +0300

Hello Paul,

in your NUTSS proposal [1], you describe a two-tiered architecture of
middleboxes in which, if I understand it correctly, one tier is in
charge of negotiating and admitting paths between host pairs, and the
other enforces that only authorized hosts can use a particular path.

  [1] draft-irtf-eme-francis-nutss-design-00.txt

Now, the way this is specified in the draft seems to require support on
both sides of the connection.  I was wondering whether you assume a
universal middlebox infrastructure?  What would happen if host A wants
to communicate to host B, and there exists a middlebox in charge of A,
but none in charge of B?  And, probably more importantly, what would
happen if B tries to establish a connection with A?

Even though transition is not one of the EME research group's primary
goals at this point, I think it is important to support scenarios where
one side of the connection is legacy, or even /design/ the architecture
under the assumption that there will always be legacy sites on the
Internet.  For otherwise, I would agree with Teemu (see his earlier
email on this list) that a clean-slate approach such as DONA, which also
avoids the shortfalls of DNS as a look-up mechanism, would be as
feasible to deploy and hence possibly more appropriate.

This is not at all to say that I don't appreciate the work of EME and
proposals like NUTSS.  But the focus of such work should, IMO, be more
oriented to the existing Internet architecture -- which means that
transition is an important thing to be considered from the very
beginning.  In the special case of NUTSS, I think this should be achievable.

Kind regards,
- Christian

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme