1 / 4

PILC: Performance Enhancing Proxies (PEPs)

PILC: Performance Enhancing Proxies (PEPs). 47th IETF draft-ietf-pilc-pep-02.txt John Border, Markku Kojo, Jim Griner, Gabriel Montenegro. Status. The -01 draft was released after the DC IETF meeting.

vangie
Download Presentation

PILC: Performance Enhancing Proxies (PEPs)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PILC:Performance Enhancing Proxies(PEPs) 47th IETF draft-ietf-pilc-pep-02.txt John Border, Markku Kojo, Jim Griner, Gabriel Montenegro

  2. Status • The -01 draft was released after the DC IETF meeting. • Tried to clarify various sections, especially those for which we received good input for -00 draft. • We did not receive any comments for -01 draft :-( • The -02 draft was submitted prior to this meeting (IETF-47) • Incorporates most, but not all, of the comments received so far. • Lots of minor edits and wordsmithing plus some sections more heavily revisited. • Completed VSAT example and added text for W-WAN examples, including WAP • We need help filling in some of the sections of the draft (and in addressing some uncovered comments)

  3. Soliciting Input (still) • Additional PEP types and/or mechanisms which should be included in the draft. Some mechanisms already identified and placeholders added: • protocol booster mechanisms • ACK filtering and regeneration (in ASYM) • partial ACK mechanisms ? • others...? • Some additional example environments where PEPs are used may be added. • However, we are not trying to describe every PEP implementation in existence. So, proposals illustrating types or mechanisms of PEPs other than those illustrated by the existing examples are favored • Need help in completing the section on WAP.

  4. Soliciting Input (Cont.) • Most importantly, we are currently soliciting input on (additional) implications of using PEPs. Some ideas already suggested (placeholders exist) which need to be flushed out (or need additional flushing out): • End-to-end failure diagnostics • Multi-homing environments (got comment in Oslo, but no input) • QoS transparency (got comment in Oslo, but no input) • Any other security implications besides those currently included • Others ? (Aren’t there any?) • Terminology refinement

More Related