RE: Callback Profile
"Paul Andrews" <[email protected]> Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:44:48 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.beep |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
My reading of the Microsoft note is that this only applies to Microsoft network services, not to arbitrary TCP connections. i.e. a single XP Home machine can support 5 other remote machines where each remote machine can perform any number of remote disk mounts, printer shares etc. Have you tried just opening lots of BEEP connections to a peer running on an XP machine? To address one issue more directly: Opening a separate connection for callbacks won't work if you're going through a NATing router (like the little Linksys router I'm using at home at the moment). > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Eamon O'Tuathail > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [BEEPwg] Callback Profile > > > > Is there a need for a callback profile, where an initiator peer asks the > listener peer to initiate a new session between the same two peers. > (i.e. peer A wishes peer B to initiate a session to peer A, but peer A > needs to tell peer B to do this - hence the callback profile). > > The motivation would be firstly to enhance security in certain > environments (a highly secure peer may only permit incoming connections > to request a callback, but expose no other functionality [apart from the > tuning profiles] to them), and secondly to work in environments when > there are business/technical restrictions on the number and direction of > open connections. > > A peer running on Windows XP Home can only maintain five simultaneous > incoming connections, and a peer running on Windows XP Professional can > only have 10 simultaneous incoming connections. > [see http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q314882] > There are no restrictions on Windows 2000 Server or Windows .NET Server > on the number of incoming connections. For all the versions of Windows > mentioned, there are no restrictions on the number of outgoing > connections. > > One expensive option is to set up a traditional Windows client-server > network, which usually involves Windows Domains. This requires you to > buy > Windows XP Professional for machines that only act as client (XP Home > will not suffice for Windows Domains), buy the Windows Server product > for machines that might have more than 10 incoming connections, and buy > a "Client Access License" for each client to permit it to access a > server. (you Linux guys can stop laughing now). > > A much better option is to just put Windows XP Home on all the machines, > and using the callback profile arrange them as required - maybe point to > point, or maybe hub-and-spoke [if one peer exposes a service that many > other wish to use]. > > How would a callback profile work? > ================================== > 1) A peer [we call it the provider peer] that provides a popular service > or a high-security service based on BEEP would list the Callback Profile > in its Greeting message. Depending on local configuration this could be > the initial greeting message, or the one after the tuning reset > following TLS setup; also authentication may be required. > > 2) A peer wishing to use the remote service [the user peer] would > establish a connection to the provider peer, configure security as > appropriate, and upon detecting the Callback Profile in the Greeting > message, would create a channel based on this profile. > > 3) The user peer sends a single message on the callback channel to the > provider peer identifying the transport mapping details to use for the > callback - e.g. transport mapping type [RFC 3081, SCTP, multiple TCP > connections] and addressing [for RFC 3081, IP address and port to use]. > > 4) The existing session is shut down. > > 5) The provider peer initiates a session with the user peer based on the > addressing information provided. After that, it works just as normal. > > My questions: > ============= > > Anyone see any problems with this approach? > > Anyone got a better solution? > > Anyone got a good reference to security issues that have been uncovered > with other types of callback usage - e.g. ftp. > > An alternative to the callback profile in BEEP would be a simple UDP > message, but I would have security concerns about that. > > Eamon > > _______________________________________________ > BEEPwg mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.beepcore.org/mailman/listinfo/beepwg