Subject: IPP> MOD - What is a Firewall?

From: Carl-Uno Manros <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 08:15:55 -0700

I have been trying to figure out how we can get the discussion about how to
distinguish IPP in firewalls a little more structured and not talk past each
other. Let me try to sketch up a simple model of how I think firewalls work,
and where the different proposals come in.

NOTE, that there is no standard what-so-ever for firewalls, so whatever
model you come up with will not fit every firewall implementation. If there
was a firewall standard in the IETF, we would not have this discussion.

I think a common feature of all firewalls is that they have a hierachy,
which sometimes is shallow and sometimes is deep. Here is my try at
describing the more important "layers".

1) Host address    TCP/IP address
2) Port number     Default 80 for HTTP
3) Protocol        "http" for HTTP
4) Method          POST etc. for HTTP
5) Content         HTML etc.

Filtering in the firewall can be done on any of these layers. Usually the
firewall only let things through that it can identify and refuses the rest.

Keith Moore suggests that we need to change both layer 2) and 3) above to
give the firewall a chance to distinguish IPP from HTPP traffic.

MS experts and a couple of others have suggested that the filtering takes
place on layer 4), by allocating a new PRINT method for IPP and we do not
need to touch layers 2) and 3).

In discussions that I had with firewall experts last year, they indicated
that they had no problem to filter on layer 5), e.g. distinguishing IPP from
HTML etc. by identifying the content as an "application/ipp" MIME type.

So what it all boils down to is how versatile the firewall implementation is.

To make a concious decision about filtering in/out IPP from other HTTP
traffic, any current firewall will need to be reconfigured or modified in
same way.

Looking at my hierachy, I suggest that if firewall do all levels, there is
NO need to modify anything in the current IPP specs. If we move up (or down)
to level 4), then we should go along with the MS approach, etc.

My 2 cents,

Carl-Uno