Re: [Hipsec] Rechartering items?

Tom,

> The RG is also considering solutions involving HIP-aware firewalls  
> and NATs, but IMO that type of work (as well as native HIP API) is  
> not ready for a WG.

I agree.

>>   - invisible HIP, or using HIP with IP addresses as LSIs, similar  
>> to SHIM6 ULIDs
>>
> A draft that discusses this topic is at: http://www.ietf.org/ 
> internet-drafts/draft-henderson-hip-applications-01.txt
>
> It has not generated any mailing list or meeting discussion.  I was  
> thinking of submitting it to RFC Editor as an individual  
> submission.  This topic is not one that necessarily involves  
> interoperability, so I would like to understand better what is left  
> to do (as a possible WG item) beyond the present draft.

There are severe interoperability issues with upper layer protocols.   
Depending on what you use at the API as LSI, those upper layer  
protocols that send LSIs in their datagrams to third hosts will  
either fail or work.  One could consider this also as an  
architectural issues, as it circles around the semantics of LSIs/ 
ULIDs, specifically whether they are routable or not.

The existing draft is pretty good in outlining the issues, and fine  
as long as we want to use HIP only as experimental.  However, if we  
would like to advance HIP to standards track, then we need to have  
*one* RECOMMENDED way for LSIs...  The other way would remain  
experimental, between consenting hosts, IMHO.

At the protocol level there may be desire to negotiate this.  I.e. an  
extension that defines in I2 which LSI format is used by the  
peer....  That could be informational, as any two-hosts protocols can  
function even if the communicating hosts use different LSI formats.

--Pekka

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec