Hi Martin Please see PPE for my comments inline
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:50 AM Martin Duke via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> 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 lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
