[Hipsec] Selection of LSI address block

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Wed, 19 August 2009 21:37 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 17B483A6FD7 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_05=-1.11]
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 QWCoG1Lpwdff for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213953A6899 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:37:34 -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 n7JLbUJl024995 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:37:30 -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; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:37:17 -0400
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
To: hipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <4A8C708D.4010503@htt-consult.com>
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
Subject: [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: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:37:38 -0000

We need to come to a quick determination about what we use for LSIs.

I have been asked by IANA for clearification on what HIP has been using 
1.0.0.0/8 for.  I pointed them to the text from 4423 for now.    But 
note that Net1 has been released to the RIRs.  Here is what I have been 
told:

=============================================

Whichever block is selected for HIP LSIs we will need to follow the
direction in section 4.1 of RFC 2860:

   4.1. The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters
   only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs,
   including Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards and Best
   Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for IANA
   assignment. 

If the IESG are willing to direct us to reserve a particular /8 or (or a
part of it) for a special purpose then we would do so and make sure not to
allocate it to an RIR. However, for the time being, 1.0.0.0/8 is available
for allocation to RIRs and could be allocated.


=============================================

We have discussed using 127.0.0.0 for LSIs, say 127.100.0.0/16, but will 
that really work?

Will the kernels handle them in a reasonable way?

What will protocols like the FTP command channel's use of IPaddresses 
look like?

Or referalls?

Can anyone shed light on this or actually do some testing?

If we REALLY need routable addresses, we need a serious dialog with IANA 
now.