[Hipsec] Improving the resiliency of HIP against packet loss
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34 UTC
Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7ADE3A72CF for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2010 00:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.508, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxLWglTwm59H for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2010 00:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAA73A72D3 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 May 2010 22:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFDA68BE9 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2010 04:54:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uet7rCDjE9oX for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2010 00:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02C1668C4C for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2010 00:54:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4BF61389.1090509@htt-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 01:00:57 -0400
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Hipsec] Improving the resiliency of HIP against packet loss
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:31 -0000
Tobias pointed out to me that currently HIP "is rather slow in cases of packet loss". What might we change to address this? Consider standard Internet packet lose and separately high packet lose over lousy (eg 802.15.4) networks. I should point out that the design for IEEE 11073 is that it will take a number of tries to get the data from a sensor to a controller. This protocol just keeps on polling until it gets a response.
- [Hipsec] Improving the resiliency of HIP against … Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] Improving the resiliency of HIP agai… Robert Moskowitz