Sure, but please add the TSVWG reference for NAT.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:10 AM Padma Pillay-Esnault <[email protected]> wrote: > Would these changes address your feedback? > > Clarified the text as we are not building a new NAT solution but rather > adding LISP extensions needed to make it work. > > Original: > NAT-Traversal: Support for a NAT-traversal solution in deployments where > LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node). > > Proposed: > NAT-Traversal: *LISP protocol extensions to* support a NAT-traversal > solution in deployments where LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a > NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node) > > and > > Original: > Map Server Reliable Transport: LISP control plane messages are transported > over UDP, however, in some cases, the use of a reliable transport protocol > is a better fit, since it actually helps reduce periodic signaling. > > Proposed: > Map Server Reliable Transport: LISP control plane messages are transported > over UDP, however, in some cases, the use of a reliable transport protocol > *(such as TCP)* is a better fit, since it actually helps reduce > periodic signaling. > Thanks > Padma > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:00 AM Martin Duke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> SG, please mention these points in the text. >> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:38 AM Padma Pillay-Esnault <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Martin >>> >>> Please see PPE for my comments inline >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:50 AM Martin Duke via Datatracker < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for >>>> charter-ietf-lisp-04-06: Block >>>> >>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> BLOCK: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Is the NAT traversal work going to prioritize existing solutions (e.g. >>>> STUN, >>>> TURN, ICE), or have all those already been determined to be inadequate? >>>> If the >>>> latter, LISP should coordinate with TSVWG on its NAT traversal solution. >>>> >>>> PPE - The symmetric or endpoint-address-and-port-dependent mapping NATs >>>> (ICE, TURN..) have been have been determined to be inadequate due to >>>> the nature of LISP that is typically unidirectional traffic and its usage >>>> of UDP port 4341 without specification of source port. >>>> >>> Yes - on coordination with TSVWG. >>>> >>> >>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> COMMENT: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Is the reliable transport protocol required to be secure? (e.g., are you >>>> looking at TCP/TLS, QUIC, and SCTP/DTLS, or just bare TCP/SCTP) >>>> >>>> PPE - The current reliable transport draft has a proposal for the use >>>> of bare TCP and fallback to UDP using the existing mechanisms for security >>>> in LISP. The document is being evaluated and reviewed. >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks >>> Padma >>> >>
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
