Re: [Hipsec] Need to clarify HIT prefix

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Fri, 15 April 2011 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C578E073C for <hipsec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 454HBB609WHC for <hipsec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78916E06ED for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67EE062A7A; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:42:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at localhost
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 eFApVL1tHNBI; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:42:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (nc2400.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17C4D62B8D; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4DA83D31.6090309@htt-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:42:25 -0400
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Laganier <julien.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <4D94D7E4.5010701@htt-consult.com> <BANLkTimAOQQ5n0nOKfs0Of7-L=dPBdr_FA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimMTTMA52-j-RJkJG2yrkqCVsiDxw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimMTTMA52-j-RJkJG2yrkqCVsiDxw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Need to clarify HIT prefix
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 15 Apr 2011 12:42:47 -0000

On 04/15/2011 06:39 AM, Julien Laganier wrote:
> and FWIW 2001:10::/28 and 2001:0000::/32 are disjoint.

Well yes, for 4843 and 4380.

And do current HIP implementations use 2001:10::/28?

But 4843-bis has 2001:0000::/23

Perhaps that is a typo or a placeholder?

So in part what Gonzalo is saying is do we stay with what we have right 
now during the ID phase, or do we ask IANA for a proper assignment 
during development?

> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:36 AM, Julien Laganier<julien.ietf@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xml
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Robert Moskowitz<rgm@htt-consult.com>  wrote:
>>> WHAT is the prefix used in HIPv1 (RFC 5201)?
>>>
>>> RFC 4843 states:
>>>
>>>    Prefix          : A constant 28-bit-long bitstring value
>>>                      (2001:10::/28).
>>>
>>>
>>> But 4843-bis states:
>>>
>>>    IANA allocated a temporary non-routable 28-bit prefix from the IPv6
>>>    address space.  By default, the prefix will be returned to IANA in
>>>    2014, continued use requiring IETF consensus.  As per [RFC4773], the
>>>    28-bit prefix was drawn out of the IANA Special Purpose Address
>>>    Block, namely 2001:0000::/23, in support of the experimental usage
>>>    described in this document.  IANA has updated the IPv6 Special
>>>    Purpose Address Registry.
>>>
>>> There is NOTHING in the IANA registry about any assignment.  But as I plowed
>>> through the iana assignment information, I found:
>>>
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xml
>>>
>>> [9]    3FFE:831F::/32 was used for Teredo in some old but widely
>>>         distributed networking stacks. This usage is deprecated in favour of
>>> 2001::/32,
>>>         which was allocated for the purpose in [RFC4380]
>>>
>>> And sure enough in 4380:
>>>
>>> 2.6. Global Teredo IPv6 Service Prefix
>>>
>>>    An IPv6 addressing prefix whose value is 2001:0000:/32.
>>>
>>>  From this I MIGHT infer that Teredo is stepping within HIP's ORCHID
>>> allocation!
>>>
>>> Obviously this needs some clarification (at least for me!)
>>>
>>> AND
>>>
>>> IANA needs to put in the registry what HIPv1 is using, and then make sure
>>> that the HIPv2 prefix is publicized.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec mailing list
>>> Hipsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>>>