inline
On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:14 , Magnus Westerlund wrote:
Cullen Jennings skrev 2011-01-31 18:44:
Magnus, I agree with what you are saying here but you are avoiding the
issue I am concerned with. Is allocating a second port for the secure
version of a document a frivolous use case or not? I read this draft as
saying it is. Others read the draft as saying it is not and that type of
allocation is fine. This seems fairly easy to deal with - first lets agree
if particular 2nd port for secure version is a reason to reject requests or
not then see if any text needs to be adjusted in the draft to reflect that.
Well, frankly I don't know. I think it is something that can be avoided
going forward in many use cases, but not all. Simply by thinking of this
issue in the design phase. In addition there is clearly other solutions
there other considerations, like NAT traversal has said, yes
multiplexing is a must, thus live with even higher complexity costs.
The issue I have a problem with is that is we say on general basis that
due to negotiation of security protocols we are allowed to use different
ports for negotiation or simply usage of it. Then why is that different
from different versions of the protocol, or feature support. What is the
difference for a security protocol compared to these other issues?
I've provided reason why I think this is needed for security in previous email
on this thread. I'm not arguing you need more ports for versions or feature
support - I don't think you do.
What I am worried here is that we will see an increased port consumption
rather than a decreased one. At the current run rate I think the
estimate is 50 years+ before run out. That is something that I am
reasonably comfortable, but if the consumption rate increases four
times, then I am suddenly not comfortable. So I am pretty certain that
we need to aim at lowering the consumption rather than raising it.
I'm far more worried about people just using ports without registering them
than I am about running out. Keep in mind the allocation policy is more or less
anyone can get one port for just about anything so if we are really worried
about running out, we would change that. Most protocols will not need or
request two ports.
As I see it there are only one way of doing it.
- State clearly that you really need to do everything reasonable so that
your application is only for one port.
"Reasonable" here is the problem. I don't want the expert review to tell me a
second port for security is not reasonable for cases where latency is a
relevant.
- Be reasonably tough from the expert reviewer to ensure that applicants
has done this.
Again - I want to be able to register ports for proprietary protocols without
disclosing the details of the proprietary algorithm
And from that perspective I don't think security is special in anyway.
It is only one of several things that could potentially require
additional registered ports. Yes security is important, but as
previously discussed it doesn't appear that the actual level of security
provided is different if you are forced to use one port or two. It might
affect the ease of implementation and deployment of security, which is
another aspect of impact.
It's not just an "ease" of anything - it's the real time performance of the
resulting system that is an issue.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto:
magnus(_dot_)westerlund(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf