Subject: [midcom] Evaluation: RSIP (tunneling)

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:12:05 +0200

In section 1.2.4 of the protocol evaluation doc it is mentioned that 
RSIP uses tunnels to give hosts behind a middlebox access to public 
network (the cited text is below). As far as I see this requires that 
the hosts have a modified IP stack, in order to support RSIP. I see this 
as unsuitable for a MIDCOM solution, because I would like to use my five 
years old hardware SIP phone behind a packet filter. I see no way to 
modify the IP stack of my phone.

The text cited below talks only about NATs, but what about pure packet 
filters? In packet filter case I don't need a tunnel at all, that's just 
plain overhead! Furthermore I see a architectural difference between 
RSIP and the midcom approach. The MIDCOM agent is not involved in the 
data transmission, but the RISP is involved.

For me RSIP imposes to many obstacles in order to be a MIDCOM protocol.

Martin

+++
"RSIP with tunneling, has the advantage that the public realm IP
addresses and port numbers are known to the private realm host
application, thus no translation is needed for protocols such as
SDP, the FTP control protocol, RTSP, SMIL, etc.. However, this does
require that an RSIP server and a tunneling protocol be implemented
in the middlebox and an RSIP client and the tunneling protocol be
implemented in the private realm host. The host modifications can
generally be made without modification to the host application or
requiring the implementation of a host application agent. This is
viewed as a significant advantage over NAT (Network Address
Translation)."

-- 
Martin Stiemerling

NEC Europe Ltd. -- Network Laboratories  [email-masked]
IPv4: http://www.ccrle.nec.de  IPv6: http://www.ipv6.ccrle.nec.de

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: "Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 13:42:39 +0200

In addition to the tunnel burden, I would like to remind the WG about
RSIP's extensibility model vs other evaluated protocols.
RSIP's extensibility to meet MIDCOM's requirements requires more effort than

using the package/PIB/MIB model used by the other evaluated protocols.

My vote is to eliminate RSIP in this round of discussions
Cedric

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 17 October 2002 10:12
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [midcom] Evaluation: RSIP (tunneling)

Martin

+++

-- 
Martin Stiemerling

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 08:29:28 -0700

I agree with Cedric and Martin on this point. RSIP does not seem at all to be a good match to the problem.

---

From: "Louis-Nicolas Hamer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:35:58 -0400

Melinda started a poll, so here is my input:

I also agree with Martin, Cedric and Christian - RSIP is not a good match
IMHO for
all the reasons stated in the conclusion of the comparison draft.
"The RSIP extension mechanism has the largest impact 
    on the existing protocol and is based upon defining the necessary 
    new parameters. "
"In addition, 
    RSIP requires additions/extensions to meet several of the 
    requirements. RSIP would also require several framework elements to 
    be added to the MIDCOM framework as identified in section 1.2.3. "

Cheers,

L-N

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:29 AM
To: Aoun, Cedric [GOLF:MA01:EXCH]; Martin Stiemerling
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [midcom] Evaluation: RSIP (tunneling)

I agree with Cedric and Martin on this point. RSIP does not seem at all to
be a good match to the problem.