Re: Options to consider [Re: tunneling [Was: Agenda for Vienna]]

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

But if every NAROS message needs to be digitally signed to
prevent spoofing, that might change.

   Brian

Olivier Bonaventure wrote:
> 
> Michael,
> > >
> > > I agree that different sites will have very different requirements, so i
> > > think that within the short term solutions, multiple complementary (not
> > > competing) mechanisms are needed, so that a site can choose which
> > > mechanism to implement in order to satisfy their particular needs.
> >
> > And for each solution there needs to be a good understanding of its
> > performance implications.  A viable mechanism over DSL might not be when
> > used over gigabit ethernet.
> 
> For NAROS, Cédric de Launois has evaluated its performance by simulating
> the performance of the proposed protocol on a one-day trace of all the
> IPv4 traffic of our University (about 8000 hosts in the site and 200
> GBytes of traffic, i.e. 20 Mbps on average over the whole day). This
> evaluation shows that the NAROS approach scales well. You can find more
> details on this evaluation in the following submitted paper :
> 
> http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/delaunoi/paper/naros.pdf
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Olivier Bonaventure
> 
> --
> CSE Dept. UCL, Belgium - http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/OBO/