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

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Tue, 27 September 2016 00:56 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 406DD12B3A4 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, 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 C6gzsay1nNCJ for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:54 -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 EE07512B047 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEEBF621EC; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:56:51 -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 liKdCt3QQbp1; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:56:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (unknown [192.168.160.12]) (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 4E008621E8; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:56:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: Miika Komu <miika.komu@ericsson.com>, hipsec@ietf.org
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1609152257460.24569@hymn02.u.washington.edu> <fb5704fd-f099-92d8-025b-4f3cee0acb4f@htt-consult.com> <9dceaf66-40e7-08d4-86b7-b6228d25f6bb@ericsson.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <b4b53755-7605-c341-2466-333e725d2081@htt-consult.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:56:17 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9dceaf66-40e7-08d4-86b7-b6228d25f6bb@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/PAfcV9i5i8dzcw1I4r2IF04mc9s>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:56:56 -0000


On 09/26/2016 09:08 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/16/2016 02:45 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/16/2016 06:57 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the responder may not know the initiator's RVS even if the
>>> the responder's RVS was used, and it also may be the case that neither
>>> host's RVS was involved in the session setup.
>>
>> I see now.  As currently speced, R has no way of learning I's RVS. The
>> 'easy' way to fix this is for I to include a VIA_RVS in the I2 packet
>> for mobility support.
>>
>> "If you every want to get back to me, I can always be reached at this
>> number".
>
> do you actually need the initiator's RVS for double jump? I think the 
> responder's RVS is enough.

Then the Initiator's UPDATE must be successful before the Responder can 
perform its UPDATE successfully.  This way they can operate in parallel.


>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I believe that Baris Boyvat on the InfraHIP project was looking a
>>> while back at such an approach to fast mobility; it was called
>>> 'shotgun' approach to mobility and multihoming (try all candidates
>>> simultaneously), if I remember correctly.
>
> Yes, the idea was to send I1 (or UPDATE) through all the available 
> address pairs, but I think the idea is now achieved in a more 
> controlled way in draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-13

I will look at that.  But what if there is no NATs to traverse? That 
there are 2+ interfaces, all native IPv6?

But I will review nat-traversal.

thanks

Bob