Would these changes address your feedback? Clarified the text as we are not building a new NAT solution but rather adding LISP extensions needed to make it work.
Original: NAT-Traversal: Support for a NAT-traversal solution in deployments where LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node). Proposed: NAT-Traversal: *LISP protocol extensions to* support a NAT-traversal solution in deployments where LISP tunnel endpoints are separated from by a NAT (e.g., LISP mobile node) and Original: Map Server Reliable Transport: LISP control plane messages are transported over UDP, however, in some cases, the use of a reliable transport protocol is a better fit, since it actually helps reduce periodic signaling. Proposed: Map Server Reliable Transport: LISP control plane messages are transported over UDP, however, in some cases, the use of a reliable transport protocol *(such as TCP)* is a better fit, since it actually helps reduce periodic signaling. Thanks Padma On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 9:00 AM Martin Duke <martin.h.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > SG, please mention these points in the text. > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:38 AM Padma Pillay-Esnault <padma.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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
