RE: I-D on SAFENeT

Hi Martin,
I'm not sure how to answer your question directly so let me take a slightly different approach that I intend to be a helpful way to go.

The main difference between SAFENeT and existing MIDCOM work is that SAFENeT provides a complete solution, whereas existing work defines mostly the architecture, but not implementation.  Another difference is that SAFENeT provides a close secure relationship between the manager and agent (e.g., call server and middlebox)(they are both owned by the enterprise), whereas the other architectures provide for the case where there is no a priori relationship between the components (which may have security implications).  I believe the configuration where the server can reserve resources (e.g., ports for NAT mappings) is new, and critical for high-performance.   While SAFENeT may provide a somewhat limited scope, i.e., an enterprise solution, I believe it will provide useful insights in attacking the NAT/FW problem.

My intention is to help the development of MIDCOM protocols, not to replace them.  And that we feel that it will be useful for MIDCOM to have a working implementation (in draft form) to learn from before finalizing future MIDCOM standards.  

	Rick

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent:	Friday, July 08, 2005 8:02 AM
To:	Townsend, Richard L, JR (Rick); '[email protected]'
Subject:	Re: [midcom] I-D on SAFENeT

Hi Richard,

I have read the draft but still do not know what the difference to the usage
of the MIDCOM MIB or SIMCO is?

Thanks

  Martin

--On Mittwoch, 6. Juli 2005 15:46 Uhr -0400 "Townsend, Richard L, JR 
(Rick)" <[email protected]> wrote:

| Hi all,
| After several discussions with ADs and others, we have reached the view
| that MIDCOM should be the group to discuss the I-D on SAFENeT, an
| enterprise solution to the NAT/FW traversal problem.  Melinda has asked
| me to advise you that the I-D is published as
| <draft-stott-behave-safenet-00.txt>.
|
| To see how SAFENeT addresses the NAT/FW traversal problem differently,
| let me refer you to sections of the I-D rather than rewrite them here.
|
| Section 1.5 describes what SAFENeT is trying to accomplish.
| Section 2 describes existing views/solutions of the NAT/FW traversal.
| Section 3.1 gives an overview of SAFENeT.
|
| We believe SAFENeT could be fit within other developing
| architectures/protocols if that's what the group desires and it is
| reasonable simple, in part, because it carves out a niche in that it
| addresses enterprise networks and does not try to solve the general
| problem.
|
| Comments are welcome.
|
| 	Rick
|
| _______________________________________________
| midcom mailing list
| [email protected]
| https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom