[Hipsec] flow bindings for locators
"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Thu, 31 March 2011 17:41 UTC
Return-Path: <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.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 EC7213A6A33 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 c01B3HBmxjlg for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B26C3A69FC for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p2VHgf5l018213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p2VHgeLr008480 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-05.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-05.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.109]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p2VHgeCF008471 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.85]) by XCH-NWHT-05.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.109]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:42:40 -0700
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:42:39 -0700
Thread-Topic: flow bindings for locators
Thread-Index: AcvvywdKo5u6DpO3SVyIJuw38HquLA==
Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CED25B0BF@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Hipsec] flow bindings for locators
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: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:41:03 -0000
I forgot to mention an additional issue to consider for rfc5206-bis, but I just added a tracker item: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/23 The issue to consider is from recently published draft-cao-hiprg-flow-mobility-00; whether to consider to rework our LOCATOR parameter so that it is extensible for flow bindings defined in RFC6089. Although flow bindings are a multihoming issue, the LOCATOR definition is part of 5206bis. Comments on this idea? - Tom
- [Hipsec] flow bindings for locators Henderson, Thomas R