Subject: RE: [midcom] draft-ietf-midcom-requirements-01.txt

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:00:08 -0700

> I'm trying to get a handle on why people feel that
> using transport header source and destination addresses
> along with per-interface policy isn't sufficient -
> why do we need, for example, a "direction" field in
> a midcom information element?  I'd like to avoid
> redundancy and potential conflicts that result from
> that redundancy.

I believe that the "direction" field is artificial. It assumes that
boxes have always exactly one inside and one outside, which is not true
-- a branch office firewall will typically have three interfaces, the
local network, the Internet, and a VPN connection to the main corporate
site.

The examples about RTP have outlined the fact that RTP pin-hole
typically are of the form "allow data from unknown sources and ports to
reach a specific address and port." It is true that the average RTP
session will require 2 pinholes. But in this case, the direction is
expressed trivially; there is no need for a multi-value field.

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom