[e2e] j'accuse NFV

[Djamel Sadok]

nothing is wrong with e2e encryption. Perhaps all traffic will be encrypted
in a few years anyway.

I only want to find out if there could be a way to adopt NFV while leaving
a choice for traffic that does not want to be NFV´ed perhaps because of the
fear that some middlebox function (NFV) may alter some e2e
http2/QUIC/SPDY/.. clever adaptation that booble engineers have  just come
up with.

Djamel


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:24 PM, <dpreed at reed.com> wrote:

> What's wrong with e2e encryption as the right answer?  I'm missing
> something here.
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 4, 2015 1:55pm, "Djamel Sadok" <jamel at cin.ufpe.br> said:
>
>  > To have a FW is difficult (performance wise) and sometimes illegal to
> have
> > DPI on the subnet to build an IDS.
> >
> > But what happens when everyone bypasses NFVs?
> >
> > Still, it could be necessary to maintain both religions side by side. But
> > how can a user check that its packets have not been NFV´ed by some
> > functions? other than e2e encrypting?
> >
> > Djamel
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Khaled Elsayed <kelsayed at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > You mean like a hacking packet would say please don't process me via
> that
> > > nifty NFV firewall or something :-)
> > >
> > > Khaled
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Djamel Sadok <jamel at cin.ufpe.br>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> May be we could also give the end user flow the possibility to say
> that
> > it
> > >> does not want to have its data packets processed by any NFV or even
> black
> > >> list some NFVs (types of functions) on the path. Would this be
> possible
> > to
> > >> achieve? would it render NFV ineffective? can both NFV and Not NFV
> > (bypass
> > >> it) on given flows live together?
> > >>
> > >> Djamel
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Matt Mathis
> > <mattmathis at google.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 3:26 PM, <l.wood at surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ah, j'accuse TLA.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > SDN is not is the same bucket, let me assure you.
> > >> >
> > >> > As for TCP, good algorithms are portable between protocols, bad
> > >> algorithms
> > >> > are dangerous at any scale. Once you fully deconstruct the
> > protocol, I
> > >> > don't care so much about the packet format.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > --MM--
> > >> > The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay
> > >> >
> > >> > Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using
> > our
> > >> > services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat
> > privacy
> > >> and
> > >> > security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they
> > are.
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > end2end-interest mailing list
> > >> > end2end-interest at postel.org
> > >> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
> > >> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> end2end-interest mailing list
> > >> end2end-interest at postel.org
> > >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
> > >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > end2end-interest mailing list
> > end2end-interest at postel.org
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> >
>