Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 & 06 -bis

Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com> Tue, 27 September 2016 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA1B12B09F for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ygkf0KuN0ew1 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35BBB12B018 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b73ff70000000cb2-99-57ea34aa229a
Received: from ESESSHC010.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.48]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C6.A3.03250.AA43AE75; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:58:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [131.160.51.22] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:58:18 +0200
To: <hipsec@ietf.org>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1609152257460.24569@hymn02.u.washington.edu> <fb5704fd-f099-92d8-025b-4f3cee0acb4f@htt-consult.com> <9dceaf66-40e7-08d4-86b7-b6228d25f6bb@ericsson.com> <b4b53755-7605-c341-2466-333e725d2081@htt-consult.com>
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>
Organization: Ericsson AB
Message-ID: <b7e712b2-7da0-2f58-0d0c-75ad0af5447c@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:58:18 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b4b53755-7605-c341-2466-333e725d2081@htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms080509060809070001020606"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7ge5qk1fhBkv3yFtMXTSZ2YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGYufv2EtmOhS0b5vPksD42y7LkZODgkBE4mnT3YwdzFycQgJ rGeUOPRiIiOEs5pRonvzaaAMB4ewgLPEpoOCIA0iAqISUz6chmr4yCgxac50NpAEm4CWxKo7 15lBbH4BSYkNDbvBbF4Be4kpTe/ZQWwWAVWJ318egNWLCkRI3HrYwQJRIyhxcuYTMJsTaNfq 9W/BjmAW6GaUeNhwnRXkCCEBFYmLx4InMPLPQtIyC1kZSIJZwExi3uaHzBC2tsSyha+hbGuJ Gb8OskHYihJTuh+yQ9imEq+PfmSEsI0llq37y7aAkWMVo2hxanFSbrqRkV5qUWZycXF+nl5e askmRmCYH9zy22AH48vnjocYBTgYlXh4E2a9DBdiTSwrrsw9xKgCNOfRhtUXGKVY8vLzUpVE eD8ZvAoX4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzmu28n64kEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgXGR 7JKYG8on/tufm/GQcd/1mPer1mmpRD9k99v4i2mpltafTYoHjwjlaAed+82dFH9MjmXhyVNW n3kkwucaPZRQSasMfLM7ruj/OhlGqSTTB6/MfERMTatLDu7J2LDResb954axrBXxSqw/GeN/ 5S1iF30xq4qtqKjl1fJPvELzJmz592al8A4lluKMREMt5qLiRAD4Sn+bewIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/0C_7-Qhcu9vYlnTQ5q5rI-1Wkc8>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 & 06 -bis
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 08:58:23 -0000

Hi,

On 09/27/2016 03:56 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>
> On 09/26/2016 09:08 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 09/16/2016 02:45 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/16/2016 06:57 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 5206-bis specifies how to user RVS for the 'double-jump' mobility
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.2.3 1) says:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The mobile host sending an UPDATE to the peer, and not receiving
>>>>> an ACK, MAY resend the UPDATE to a rendezvous server (RVS) of the
>>>>> peer, if such a server is known.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it DOES know there is an RVS IF the I1 had FROM and RVS_HMAC
>>>>> parameters and it had created a VIA_RVS parameter to send in the R1.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the responder may not know the initiator's RVS even if the
>>>> the responder's RVS was used, and it also may be the case that neither
>>>> host's RVS was involved in the session setup.
>>>
>>> I see now.  As currently speced, R has no way of learning I's RVS. The
>>> 'easy' way to fix this is for I to include a VIA_RVS in the I2 packet
>>> for mobility support.
>>>
>>> "If you every want to get back to me, I can always be reached at this
>>> number".
>>
>> do you actually need the initiator's RVS for double jump? I think the
>> responder's RVS is enough.
>
> Then the Initiator's UPDATE must be successful before the Responder can
> perform its UPDATE successfully.  This way they can operate in parallel.

I see, you really want to avoid packets being dropped.

>>>>> This VIA_RVS provides the knowledge and locator of the peer's RVS.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact an aggressive mobility UPDATE would be sent simultaneously to
>>>>> the host and its RVS.  If the host had not moved itself, it gets both
>>>>> and drops the one from the RVS.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that Baris Boyvat on the InfraHIP project was looking a
>>>> while back at such an approach to fast mobility; it was called
>>>> 'shotgun' approach to mobility and multihoming (try all candidates
>>>> simultaneously), if I remember correctly.
>>
>> Yes, the idea was to send I1 (or UPDATE) through all the available
>> address pairs, but I think the idea is now achieved in a more
>> controlled way in draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-13
>
> I will look at that.  But what if there is no NATs to traverse? That
> there are 2+ interfaces, all native IPv6?
>
> But I will review nat-traversal.

Basically the nat-traversal draft is about connectivity checks (that 
traverse NATs), nothing much IPv4 specific there. Feedback is still welcome.