[Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 & 06 -bis

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Thu, 15 September 2016 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D1912B8DC for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 bskPjN2EftDh for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [50.253.254.3]) (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 7D6A212B5C7 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 07:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7A362201 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1PVkkSM4UJLB for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (unknown [5.148.40.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44CDD621FD for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2016 10:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
To: hipsec@ietf.org
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <6afe4119-3f13-b39a-62d8-fe361cfb9c95@htt-consult.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:34:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/LRa5kR2GzesuX15jC7mCgEmLtfk>
Subject: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 & 06 -bis
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:32:54 -0000

5206-bis specifies how to user RVS for the 'double-jump' mobility problem.

3.2.3 1) says:

1. The mobile host sending an UPDATE to the peer, and not receiving an 
ACK, MAY resend the UPDATE to a rendezvous server (RVS) of the peer, if 
such a server is known.

But it DOES know there is an RVS IF the I1 had FROM and RVS_HMAC 
parameters and it had created a VIA_RVS parameter to send in the R1.

This VIA_RVS provides the knowledge and locator of the peer's RVS.

In fact an aggressive mobility UPDATE would be sent simultaneously to 
the host and its RVS.  If the host had not moved itself, it gets both 
and drops the one from the RVS.

This comment recommends changes to 5204-bis 4.2.3 that the main goal of 
VIA_RVS is to facilitate support for the double-jump mobility problem 
and secondarily "to allow operators ...".

And to 5206-bis section 3.2.3 to use the VIA_RVS to 'know' that there is 
an RVS for the host and to optionally aggressively send HIP mobility 
UPDATES to the RVS.