Re: [Hipsec] Rechartering items?

>>>>   - invisible HIP, or using HIP with IP addresses as LSIs,  
>>>> similar to SHIM6 ULIDs
>>>>
>>> A draft that discusses this topic is at: http://www.ietf.org/ 
>>> internet-drafts/draft-henderson-hip-applications-01.txt
>
>> At the protocol level there may be desire to negotiate this.  I.e.  
>> an extension that defines in I2 which LSI format is used by the  
>> peer....  That could be informational, as any two-hosts protocols  
>> can function even if the communicating hosts use different LSI  
>> formats.
>>
>
> I don't see how this would work since it is too late to be deciding on
> LSI once I2 is happening.

I was merely thinking about error diagnostics.  It may be good to  
know what what kind of upper layer identifiers your peer is using in  
its legacy API, even if you can't adopt your own behaviour any more  
at that place.  I realise I used the term "negotiate" improperly.

To clarify:  it may be a good idea for hosts to tell their peers what  
kind of upper layer identifiers they are using in their legacy API,  
in order to better diagnose potential conditions where using  
different kind of formats lead to upper-layer error conditions.

--Pekka

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec