IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Selection of LSI address block

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Thu, 20 August 2009 10:29 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 5870E3A6FDF for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <0-hVQNsbej8k>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Header field occurs more than once: "References" occurs 3 times
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 0-hVQNsbej8k for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B249D3A6EA9 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7KATEA5005227; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:29:14 -0400
Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (onlo.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.148]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Scalix SMTP Relay 11.3.0.11339) via ESMTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:28:41 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:28:39 -0400
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
To: miika.komu@hiit.fi
Message-ID: <4A8D2557.4060705@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A8CF111.5010901@hiit.fi>
References: <4A8C708D.4010503@htt-consult.com>
References: <0DF156EE7414494187B087A3C279BDB404AD7C6A@XCH-NW-6V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <4A8CF111.5010901@hiit.fi>
x-scalix-Hops: 1
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090625)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Selection of LSI address block
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: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:29:55 -0000

Miika Komu wrote:
> Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>> We have discussed using 127.0.0.0 for LSIs, say 127.100.0.0/16, but 
>>> will that really work?
>>
>> in the OpenHIP software we have a macro IN_LOOP() to check if an IPv4
>> address is equal to (INADDR_LOOPBACK >> IN_CLASSA_NSHIFT), i.e. if 
>> the top bits equal 127
>> (see /usr/include/netinet/in.h on Linux)
>>
>> I wonder if other applications use similar techniques to check for
>> loopback addresses? Using 127.100.0.0/16 would be problematic in that
>> case.
>
> many apps probably (?) just check 127.0.0.0/8 which could be a big 
> problem for HIP. I would prefer getting a slot from 1.0.0.0/x address 
> space to avoid such problems. We have been experimenting with the 
> 1.0.0.0/x address space without any problems. 

Then we need to make an official request from IANA.


It should come from our chairs. But some text from our developers as to 
why 127 won't work MAY be of value.

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status