[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [saag] draft-stjohns-sipso-05 & transport protocols



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> On  3 Oct 2008, at 11:10, Joe Touch wrote:
...
>> I'm asking that the document explain how MLS systems' view of 793 and
>> 1122 rules for TCP change as well. Others pointed out the potential need
>> to "update" 793 regarding TCP changes; IMO this is needed for other
>> network architecture docs as well.
> 
> I am confused how the above would translate into a specific edit.

You can't just redefine TCP's notion of an endpoint. You need to address
how this propagates through the protocol stack, notably:

	- ICMP handling
		does the ICMP carry the security level of the
		packet in its payload?

		does ICMP processing match the level of the
		incoming packet to the transport protocol?

	- forwarding
		should there be multiple forwarding entries,
		just as there are multiple TCPs for a socket pair?
		
		i.e., how much is the network really virtualized,
		or are you virtualizing only the host - and only
		for certain transport protocols
		(if so, then say that rather than virtualizing the net)

	- routing
		are there routing protocols that carry reachability
		only for certain levels? are those levels encoded in the
		routing protocol's packet headers, or in the
		routing protocol content (i.e., application data)
		itself?

	- similarly for multicast...

	- similarly for DHCP...

	- similarly for IPv6 neighbor discovery...

	- similarly for other items listed in response to Bill's
	email

I.e., if this is really a virtual network, there's a LOT of work left to
be done.

If this is restricted to only TCP, then ICMP needs to be addressed (or
else PMTUD won't work), at least (perhaps also DNS, e.g., SRV responses
might need to be at the appropriate level as well), and the description
of what is virtualized should be scoped down.

(I presume the latter is where you'd prefer to go with this, though
correct me if that's not the case).

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjmlKEACgkQE5f5cImnZrvUJACfeWmREXShZZP+aCse/V3g5gKG
6a8An0TjueMBb4WYWLIiB2yHYJ+lOgOG
=Hw6t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
saag mailing list
saag at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag



Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.