[Hipsec] HIP multihoming status

Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu> Mon, 23 November 2015 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6121B314F for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 njJmf0zjuxv3 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout22.s.uw.edu (mxout22.s.uw.edu [128.95.242.222]) (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 D14531B314C for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (hymn03.u.washington.edu [140.142.9.111]) by mxout22.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id tAN71A1k008479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:10 -0800
Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id tAN717E6018233 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:07 -0800
Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 15408@localhost) by hymn03.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id tAN717k8018230 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:07 -0800
X-Auth-Received: from [73.181.150.17] by hymn03.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:07 PST
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 23:01:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
To: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1511222301070.23520@hymn03.u.washington.edu>
User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.11.23.65415
X-PMX-Server: mxout22.s.uw.edu
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, __ANY_URI 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FRAUD_INTRO 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_GREETING 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0'
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/Ez_iSA8dBUS-5_deXxImw7pG5l4>
Subject: [Hipsec] HIP multihoming status
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 07:01:53 -0000


On 11/17/2015 11:52 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Authors of the following drafts,
> 
> could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen
> next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in
> the future?
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/

Recall that we split multihoming from mobility for this version of the HIP specifications.  The HIP multihoming draft has received less attention than the mobility draft over the years.  

The open tracker issues are listed here:
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/query?component=multihoming

The first one (#3) is one that somewhat prompted the draft split.  RFC5206 advocates creating full mesh of SAs for multihoming use cases. That has led to a lot of overhead/complexity, so this tracker item is a reminder to revisit that issue.

Issue #5 suggests to add support for cross-(address)-family handovers, as outlined in a paper several years ago.

Issue #7 raises the issue of incorporating support for load-balancing across multihomed scenarios.

Issue #11 points out that the draft should better clarify the relationships between SPIs, interfaces, and locators when multihoming is available.

Issue #16 suggests to add support for sending UPDATEs in parallel, to lower latency in finding working locator pairs.  Perhaps what should be done initially is to review whether there is any specification on the receiving side that would preclude such operation in the future.

Issue #17 suggests to review two drafts on fault tolerance that may contribute to the multihoming specification.  I haven't looked at these for several years so I am not sure what specific changes might be needed now.  

So in summary, there still seems to be some work to do to resolve the above open issues.  I guess that we could perhaps reduce the work by avoiding scope increase (e.g. issues 5, 7, 16, 17) but we should still review the basic complexity issue that prompted this split and led to issues 3 and 11.  Are there any other opinions or recommendations about proceeding with the multihoming open issues?

- Tom