Re: [hiprg] HIPRG charter discussion

Xu Xiaohu <> Tue, 07 June 2011 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45A41F0C4A for <>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 20:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.81
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KmB-m0u9Iwn8 for <>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 20:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 905251F0C46 for <>; Mon, 6 Jun 2011 20:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (szxga03-in []) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <> for; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:30:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <> for; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:30:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from x41208c ([]) by (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <> for; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:30:11 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:40:08 +0800
From: Xu Xiaohu <>
In-reply-to: <>
To: "'Henderson, Thomas R'" <>,
Message-id: <005601cc24c4$99060400$cb120c00$@com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-language: zh-cn
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
References: <>
Subject: Re: [hiprg] HIPRG charter discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identity Protocol \(HIP\) Research Group" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 03:32:35 -0000

Hi Tom and all,

I propose to consider taking the hierarchical HIT research as a new charter
item. IMHO, there are at least two major benefits of using hierarchical HITs
from the commercial deployment perspectives:

First, the ID/HIT registration management service and the ID-to-Locator
mapping service corresponding to the hierarchical HITs could be run in a
hierarchical manner. In other words, such global mobility management service
systems could be operated by different countries and different operators
with clear administrative domain boundaries and reasonable business models,
just like the telephone number space in the telephone network and the home
address space in the mobile IP network. In addition, the existing DNS
infrastructure doesn't need to be changed largely. That's to say, HITs of
the HIP hosts could be stored directly as their corresponding AAAA RRs in
the existing DNS infrastructure.

Second, the usage of hierarchical HITs will ease the transition for HIP. For
instance, legacy IPv6 hosts could access mobile HIP hosts via provider-owned
HIP proxy devices (just as home agents in the mobile IP network) since the
hierarchical HITs could be routable in the Internet. On the contrary,
ORCHIDs are not routable in the Internet since there is no reasonable
business motivation for operators to deploy HIP proxy devices for such flat

There has been some proposals and presentations discussing about
hierarchical HITs in HIPRG before as follows:

By the way, we have implemented the RANGI
( prototype which uses a
hierarchical and cryptographic host IDs with delegation-oriented structure.
Hope we could have a chance to show the implementation details and
verification results at the forthcoming IETF meeting in Quebec City.

Best regards,

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [] 代表
> Henderson, Thomas R
> 发送时间: 2011年6月6日 22:49
> 收件人:
> 抄送: ''
> 主题: [hiprg] HIPRG charter discussion
> With the completion of the experiment report (our main RG charter item
> the RG's inception), I would like to ask about future directions of the
> Outside of completing our current RG drafts, we need to try to define some
> new collaborative work items and define what role the RG will play
relative to
> the WG.
> These work items should ideally satisfy the following criteria:
> - is the research area clear and relevant for the Internet community and
> HIP in particular?  What are the expected outcomes and impact?
> - will the RG foster work that would not be done otherwise?  For instance,
> participation drawn from more than a single institution or country.  Can
> try to identify individuals for this anticipated participation?
> We can have some discussion of this at the next meeting but I would like
to see
> whether we can start identifying some topics on the list before the
> - Tom
> _______________________________________________
> hiprg mailing list