Subject: [icnrg] Last Call: draft-irtf-icnrg-ipoc

From: "David R. Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:51:17 -0400

Hello ICNRG,

This is a last call for comments on draft-irtf-icnrg-IPOC (Internet 
Protocol Tunneling over Content Centric Mobile Networks).

We want to publish this as an Experimental RFC. Please read it and let 
us know if you think there are issues. The last call ends on April 15, 
i.e., 3 weeks from today.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-ipoc/

Abstract

    This document describes a protocol that enables tunneling of 
Internet
    Protocol traffic over a Content Centric Network (CCNx) or a Named
    Data Network (NDN).  The target use case for such a protocol is to
    provide an IP mobility plane for mobile networks that might 
otherwise
    use IP-over-IP tunneling, such as the GPRS Tunneling Protocol (GTP)
    used by the Evolved Packet Core in LTE networks (LTE-EPC).  By
    leveraging the elegant, built-in support for mobility provided by
    CCNx or NDN, this protocol achieves performance on par with LTE-EPC,
    equivalent efficiency, and substantially lower implementation and
    protocol complexity [Shannigrahi].  Furthermore, the use of CCNx/NDN
    for this purpose paves the way for the deployment of ICN native
    applications on the mobile network.

Best regards,
ICNRG chairs

DaveO

---

From: Luca Muscariello <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:00:42 +0100

Hi

I went through the draft and I have a few comments and some questions.

1 how does this system work when IP addresses at local interfaces change?
  My question is about both the underlying mechanics and also the
performance
  of the system in such cases.
2 What are the implications of using signed Interests in this way? I mean
  100% of the Interests are signed in the tunneling scheme. My question is
both
  in terms of security and performance. And with performance I mean both
  mobility and local flow balance.
3 Is there any reality check and running code of this scheme?
  Every Internet draft comes with a security section but not a cost section
  however it is unclear in this specific case, what are the benefits of
this
  scheme and if one would need it compared to existing tunneling
technologies.
  The alleged benefits of CCNx in terms of mobility are never spelled out
in the
  draft but it is unclear if any mobility benefit still holds using this
technique.
4 The cost of signing every packet is significant and would probably kill
  the performance of the tunnel. In the last section the authors seem to
  consider interest/data signatures as optional. Can this be clarified and
spelled
  out clearly? Is the intent to use the tunnel w/o signatures?

Thank
Best
Luca

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 2:51 PM David R. Oran <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>