Re: [Hipsec] RFC5206 and LOCATOR parameter

Miika Komu <miika.komu@hiit.fi> Thu, 25 February 2010 07:10 UTC

Return-Path: <miika.komu@hiit.fi>
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 6CEA73A80B2 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:10:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 7C8P3nuplwCt for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from argo.otaverkko.fi (argo.otaverkko.fi [212.68.0.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6653A852A for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:10:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (cs27089185.pp.htv.fi [89.27.89.185]) by argo.otaverkko.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058EB25ED06 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:12:24 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4B8622EC.3050702@hiit.fi>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:12:44 +0200
From: Miika Komu <miika.komu@hiit.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100217 Shredder/3.0.3pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hipsec@ietf.org
References: <4B851BB1.7060502@cs.hut.fi> <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B937825E7B02@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <FD98F9C3CBABA74E89B5D4B5DE0263B937825E7B02@XCH-NW-12V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RFC5206 and LOCATOR parameter
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: miika.komu@hiit.fi
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, 25 Feb 2010 07:10:26 -0000

On 25/02/10 00:23, Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote:

Hi,

>> The position of the LOCATORs varies at the Responder. RFC5206 place
>> it R1 whereas the NAT traversal extension places it in R2. While
>> both of the positions can be argumented, they introduce complexity
>> for the implementation. I would suggest simplifying this and just
>> place the LOCATOR parameter always to R2. This would exclude the
>> "load balancing" feature achieved by the LOCATOR parameter in the
>> R1 packet, but this is nothing that couldn't already be achieved
>> with DNS-based schemes.
>
> I'd agree with this... one of the complexities that I dislike about
> placing LOCATORs in the R1 is that every time your locator set
> changes (if including all addresses) or every time your preferred
> locator changes, you need to invalidate your entire R1 cache and
> recompute it. This would occur at a time when you are already
> (possibly) busy generating and processing UPDATEs for the locator
> change.

we had to implement this "workaround" as well.