Re: [Hipsec] HIP Native NAT Traversal

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 14 April 2010 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 499B128C229 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 QcUOApXCrBrE for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6589B28C224 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj4IACrWxEurR7H+/2dsb2JhbACHWoEUhlOMEnGjJZoFhQ0Egyg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,202,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="182624130"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2010 03:43:07 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3E3h7Su021262; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:43:07 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'frogsir' <frogsir@gmail.com>
References: <4BBF283A.9080408@ericsson.com> <4BBF8C33.8050203@cs.hut.fi> <v2xc0c97aa91004122013udc757feu9c41a9d10d076829@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:43:07 -0700
Message-ID: <07d001cadb84$98aef7d0$ada56b80@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <v2xc0c97aa91004122013udc757feu9c41a9d10d076829@mail.gmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-Index: Acrat1QzMR62yng9Qc2FhWrVpFHFLAAzGyWQ
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] HIP Native NAT Traversal
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:43:14 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hipsec-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:hipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of frogsir
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:13 PM
> Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] HIP Native NAT Traversal
> 
> It will be easier to demultiplex connectivity checks for 
> different HAs, if we use HIP native NAT traversal
> 
> ICE is not a RFC yet. 

ICE is in the RFC Editor's queue and will be RFC5245,
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5245.txt

> Therefore, it is not reliable. We have 
> to consider the incompatibility of  ICE versions and also 
> STUN message versions. 

There is only one version of ICE and it supports only
one version of STUN.  There are certainly pre-standard 
implementations of ICE (such as that used by Microsoft's
MSN), but HIP would never need to interoperate with those.

-d


> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	On 04/09/2010 04:14 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 	
> 	Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> 		Hi,
> 		
> 		in Anaheim, we decided to continue discussing 
> on the list the following
> 		draft:
> 		
> 		
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keranen-hip-native-nat-
> traversal/
> 		
> 		In particular, I would like to see discussions 
> on the lessons learned
> 		from the STUN-based implementations and 
> potential benefits of
> 		implementing STUN-like functionality in HIP.
> 		
> 
> 
> 	from a protocol design perspective, demultiplexing of 
> HIP, ESP and STUN packets is complicated. At implementation 
> level, this introduced an additional requirement of packet 
> capture using iptables. I believe this part would become 
> cleaner design and implementation-wise by replacing STUN with HIP.
> 	
> 	It actually took quite a lot effort to hook in a 
> standalone ICE library to the base exchange code. I believe 
> it would also further complicate the mobility code.
> 	
> 	+1 for the new draft, I believe having a single control 
> plane instead of two makes things simpler. I would suggest 
> the new draft to replace the existing one for standards track.
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Hipsec mailing list
> 	Hipsec@ietf.org
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Regards
> 
> Santtu (Nick name) 
> Xiang Liu
> 
> Operation Manager
> Frosmo Ltd.
> http://www.frosmo.com
> twitter.com/Frosmo
> 
> Erottajankatu 15-17A
> 00130 Helsinki,
> Finland
> 
> mobile: +358 44 3688809
> fax: +358 20 7419 9099
> Email: santtu.liu@frosmo.com
> MSN: frogsir@hotmail.com
> 
>