From wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Wed Oct 5 09:22:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: vpn4dc@ietf.org Delivered-To: vpn4dc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 74DF421F8C98; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:22:21 -0700 (PDT) From: IETF Secretariat To: IETF Announcement list Cc: vpn4dc@ietf.org, So@ietfa.amsl.com, Ning , Luyuan Fang Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20111005162229.74DF421F8C98@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [vpn4dc] New Non-WG Mailing List: vpn4dc X-BeenThere: vpn4dc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:22:29 -0000 A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: vpn4dc@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vpn4dc/ To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vpn4dc Purpose: This mailing list will be used to discuss requirements and solutions for establishing end-to-end IP connectivity through through VPNs for data center and cloud services. For additional information, please contact the list administrators. From marshall.eubanks@gmail.com Wed Oct 5 09:47:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: vpn4dc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: vpn4dc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A5A11E809C for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:47:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dTYFsVEpPkAx for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560EE11E809F for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnk3 with SMTP id k3so1082281ggn.31 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=UzZ/5W6S4ZAWg6VhOhfNzhDarvF7cSxW6MlMPO7O2+Q=; b=nlUt9dj6U5Dj4FIbA9QW/BfHl6qOod4AeGVNgHdKSXpIOYpBjeU8abjjFtY12x2op1 BlNvxgZV5YKLw49zM6QivP9/PxfIB0TJaKbBGW0h7NRIKTNPC7PrOLujtsptooIC0ZFd 7uk56BBFQgy1JuxNdspqbhQxYZauNPQUE05NY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.53.12 with SMTP id b12mr2408758yba.140.1317833427576; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.98.20 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:50:27 -0400 Message-ID: From: Marshall Eubanks To: vpn4dc@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [vpn4dc] Call for presentation items X-BeenThere: vpn4dc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:47:22 -0000 This is a call for presentation drafts and topics for the VPN4DC discussion scheduled to be held in the L3VPN meeting in Taipei at IETF 82. If you are interested in speaking, please let one of the L3VPN co-chairs know. Regards Marshall Eubanks P.S. The AD has requested that we keep VPN4DC discussions in the L3VPN mailing list for now. From fred@cisco.com Mon Oct 31 05:59:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: vpn4dc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: vpn4dc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25E321F8D7E for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:59:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.722, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h4mlYZgYaBYM for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2027D21F8DB0 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:59:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=2224; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1320065944; x=1321275544; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=G2guliZa+vspNC9mA6k5Hv0Gpc+mOClLpClIcysrzy4=; b=Dcm8JJ3eeOzK6cFeFNOyor/KyWsYfcmV+l3pQMUDYA/2lfcPbanb9OIG bt9Kaok3CSyqE6ScSCY6iB/w+3scZggcCLZOfreoozw9N67waBW2XYt5D bQJjHSnZmWt1WXfylAlhn/emXwSr4fS6ZE+VXQx7iuu9yGT/cosKiu7Ne w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArsGAGCbrk6tJXHA/2dsb2JhbABDmiCPEoEFggsBJ4IkBwebUIEmAZ4EiCFhBIgEjAqFLYw/ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,432,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="32180439" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2011 12:59:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (tky-vpn-client-230-223.cisco.com [10.70.230.223]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9VCwu07024938 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:58:58 GMT Received: from [127.0.0.1] by localhost (PGP Universal service); Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:58:58 +0900 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by localhost on Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:58:58 +0900 From: Fred Baker Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:58:07 +0800 Message-Id: <6527FECE-3B49-4D67-BEA1-AD4ECEE420F5@cisco.com> To: vpn4dc@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [vpn4dc] Question on the problem X-BeenThere: vpn4dc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:59:04 -0000 I have started reading the vpn4dc drafts, and especially the problem = statements, and find myself scratching my head. Starting with the title = "VPN for Data Center", I really wonder if the topic is starting from a = proposed solution before settling on a problem. Let me ramble a bit, and then tell me I'm wrong. It seems to me that your primary issue is that you have a set of hosts = that want to communicate with each other securely. These hosts might be = physical or virtual, and might be in the same data center or in = different data centers. The important thing is that they be able to = authenticate communications with each other, and then do things that = they are authorized to do based on those communications. The things that = they do might differ. Within one community, the hosts might all be peers = accomplishing the job of the cloud, whatever that is - order processing, = content delivery, take your pick. Within another community, the issue = might be the management of virtual machines, and you might have a = relatively small number of control systems that talk with a large number = of client machines. The term "VPN" implies to me that you have chosen a solution. It might = be an MPLS VPN, which is to say that you have transport but depend on = higher layer services for encryption, authentication, and authorization. = In IPsec, "VPN" the term "VPN" generally refers to the tunnel mode, and = is a way of overlaying one network on another. In the case, that doesn't = make a lot of sense to me in this context - You don't appear to be = overlaying networks per se, merely making sure that messages you receive = and process are from trusted peers. If the primary issue is one of trust, we could discuss TLS, https (if = the only application protocol is a web protocol), or IPsec's transport = mode. In any of those, the issue is largely one of key distribution, and = the use of those keys for encryption and authentication to manage = communications among a set of communicating entities.=20 What am I missing? What makes this specifically a Virtual Private = Network? Why is this not a key distribution problem based on existing = technologies?=20=