Re: [6gip] IP Address Mobility project

[Hesham ElBakoury <[e-mail]>]

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
>