Re: [6gip] IP Address Mobility project

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

Yes, HIP is concluded.  But as stands will be of use in aviation.

Currently Boeing is not involved in GRAIN.  I did speak with a number of 
Boeing people this week at an aviation cyber symposium. WIde ranging 
discussions and may, or may not, impact communication plans by them.

On 2/8/23 16:50, Hesham ElBakoury wrote:
> Thanks Rob!
> HIP is a concluded group. Éric Vyncke (IAD) can also provide his 
> perspective on HIP.
>
> I recall Boeing were involved in HIP (e.g. Tom Henderson) are they 
> also contributing to GRAIN?
>
> Hesham
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 12:45 PM Robert Moskowitz 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     I should also add that in the ICAO GRAIN /20 prefix, there is an
>     place for DETs that would thus be routable over the GRAIN
>     overlay.  If that all comes to pass.  Lots of arguments on all
>     sides with the GRAIN proposal.
>
>     On 2/8/23 15:19, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>     I have not been following this thread.  I am over committed in
>>     aviation.  The DRIP work is just a small piece of what I am doing.
>>
>>     That said, I have a strong future for HIP in aviation in a lot of
>>     use cases as we get the DRIP Device Entity Tag (DET) into use,
>>     not just for unmanned, but also general aviation via the ICAO
>>     Trust Framework Panel (why I will not be at IETF116).
>>
>>     DETs are in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drip-rid/
>>     which is now in the RFC editor queue for publication.
>>
>>     IANA has assigned an IPv6 prefix for DETs.
>>
>>     As DETs add the hierarchy of registration into HITs, as I
>>     originally wanted for HIP, it scales nicely and DETs can be used
>>     in HIP or DTLS, and probably QUIC.
>>
>>     So HIP is there.  HHITs, as defined in DRIP improve on HITs. 
>>     Once DETs are used for aircraft trusted Identifiers, it is
>>     reasonable to see them used more generally.
>>
>>     Bob
>>
>>     On 2/8/23 12:20, Hesham ElBakoury wrote:
>>>     This Wikipedia article describes HIP:
>>>     https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_Identity_Protocol
>>>
>>>     I added Rob to the thread to comment on the fate of HIP.
>>>
>>>     Hesham
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, 9:05 AM Behcet Sarikaya
>>>     <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Hi Luigi,
>>>
>>>         On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 5:09 AM Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
>>>         wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             > On 7 Feb 2023, at 21:59, Dino Farinacci
>>>             <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>             >
>>>             >> Because IP is the central point of our hourglass, if
>>>             we solve mobility there we solve it for everything above L3.
>>>             >> Is this line of thought 90s… yes ;-)
>>>             >
>>>             > But the way it was solved was problematic. The address
>>>             the host used would be assigned from a locator subnet.
>>>             That's broken because what if the subnet no longer
>>>             exists. You need an EID out of a block that is not in
>>>             the underlying routing system. Just like [e-mail].
>>>
>>>             This sounds like HIP. I am not too familiar with HIP, I
>>>             assume there are mobility solutions for HIP, but we end
>>>             up to the same question: why did not fly?
>>>             (Pointer welcome ;-) )
>>>
>>>
>>>         HIP is transport layer.
>>>         I am not sure if Bob (Robert Moskowitz) is in this list
>>>
>>>         Behcet
>>>
>>>
>>>             L.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             >
>>>             > Dino
>>>             >
>>>
>>>         -- 
>>>         6gip mailing list
>>>         [e-mail]
>>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6gip
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>     -- 
>     Robert Moskowitz
>     Owner
>     HTT Consulting
>     C: 248-219-2059
>     F: 248-968-2824
>     E: [e-mail]
>
>     There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter
>     who gets the credit
>
>