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

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Tue, 27 September 2016 09:25 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 85B8812B0A2 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 02:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 XfhlPCQQ8Ytn for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 02:25:56 -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 BD1A712B00A for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 02:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA42862182; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:25:55 -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 2YyFzIEHcAS4; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:25:37 -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 9F3076216F; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:25:37 -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> <b4b53755-7605-c341-2466-333e725d2081@htt-consult.com> <b7e712b2-7da0-2f58-0d0c-75ad0af5447c@ericsson.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <071df3b8-7a71-92d8-31b4-efa1023b2014@htt-consult.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:25:29 -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: <b7e712b2-7da0-2f58-0d0c-75ad0af5447c@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FD0D29F0DBA0E2CF77C1AE3D"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/ZcXKHsrz5d6rnSQsWfiWkQxJ_Y4>
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 09:25:59 -0000


On 09/27/2016 04:58 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/27/2016 03:56 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I see, you really want to avoid packets being dropped.

Draft on Fast Mobility schedule for publication on Wednesday. ;)

Just about finished with pre-draft reviews.


>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Basically the nat-traversal draft is about connectivity checks (that 
> traverse NATs), nothing much IPv4 specific there. Feedback is still 
> welcome.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec