Re: [Hipsec] ORCHID IANA allocation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Heer [mailto:heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 5:19 AM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: 'Laganier, Julien'; miika.komu@hiit.fi; hipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] ORCHID IANA allocation
>
<snip>
>
> I don't think that is a big concern. The ORCHID is designed
> in a way that the context ID is not visible from the ORCHID.
> Hence, all protocols that use ORCHIDS need checks whether a
> given ORCHID actually matches the current protocol context.
> As far as I can tell, this is done by simple trial and error:
> hash the public key and the context ID and see if it matches.
> Now, with the 4 additional bits, for a new (4+96 bit) ORCHID,
> the protocols that use the old ORCHID format check for the
> context ID again and the test would fail. In that case, the
> protocol would figure that it is an ORCHID of another
> protocol - no harm done... and no need to "share" the four
> bits. Am I missing something here?

I think you are right.

> Do you want to discuss the answers to your questions on the
> list or are these meant as todo for the authors of the
> respective documents.

I think we should discuss them on the list.  For questions 1 and 2, I do not care so much about the answer, other than we just document what future plans are envisioned.  Question 3 is more interesting and we are already discussing with the RELOAD draft.

- Tom

>
> I can adjust the text in RFC5201-bis to match the new HIT
> format and the resulting changes in the BEX. Part of it was
> already done together with Bob anyway. I will post the result
> on the list.
>
>
> 1.)
> > - future allocations of new ORCHID prefixes?  Are there any
> conditions that would lead to asking for additional ORCHID
> prefixes, or do we expect only one such prefix?
> 2.)
> > - what happens if the four bits runs out (do we deprecate
> old values such as in RFC4982?)
> 3.)
> > - some discussion of the relationship between HITs, LSIs,
> ORCHIDs, and other quantities.
> >  ** future extension of HIT size (256 bits has been raised
> in the past)-- is this possible or are we closing the door on
> such a future extension?.  More generally, does HIP allow for
> HITs that are not ORCHIDs?  (e.g. the old type-2 HITs, or
> more recent proposals for hierarchical HITs)  Do we use the
> bits in the HIP control field to identify HIT type?
> >  ** possible use of RFC 3972 or 4982 CGAs as HITs (Marcelo
> and Jari have floated this idea in the past)
> >  ** LSI prefix for IPv4  (recall we discussed a /16 in the
> 127/8 space-- do we also want to resolve this issue while we
> are resolving ORCHIDs?)
> >  ** are LSIs possible for IPv6?  When would they be used
> instead of ORCHIDs?
> >
>
> Tobias
>
>
> > Tom
> > _______________________________________________
> > Hipsec mailing list
> > Hipsec@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student
> Distributed Systems Group
> RWTH Aachen University, Germany
> tel: +49 241 80 207 76
> web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>