Re: [Hipsec] Updating parameter type values for VIA and BONE drafts
Tobias Heer <heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de> Wed, 14 July 2010 10:03 UTC
Return-Path: <heer@informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
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 678183A659C for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ZZUC50BdDgHp for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-1.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE [134.130.7.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDE93A6952 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 03:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Received: from ironport-out-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.40]) by mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008)) with ESMTP id <0L5J00KVWLAATZ90@mta-1.ms.rz.RWTH-Aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:03:46 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,201,1278280800"; d="scan'208";a="65162313"
Received: from relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (HELO relay-auth-2) ([134.130.7.79]) by ironport-in-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:03:46 +0200
Received: from umic-i4-137-226-45-90.nn.rwth-aachen.de ([unknown] [137.226.45.90]) by relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-3.01 64bit (built Dec 9 2008)) with ESMTPA id <0L5J00CKTLAAX180@relay-auth-2.ms.rz.rwth-aachen.de> for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:03:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tobias Heer <heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de>
In-reply-to: <4C3C7661.4000408@nomadiclab.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:03:57 +0200
Message-id: <3C59C310-9904-418D-AE52-F1E9891D89C8@cs.rwth-aachen.de>
References: <4C3C7661.4000408@nomadiclab.com>
To: HIP WG <hipsec@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Updating parameter type values for VIA and BONE drafts
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 Jul 2010 10:03:42 -0000
Hello Ari, Am 13.07.2010 um 16:21 schrieb Ari Keranen: > Hi all, > > As discussed in the other thread, instead of adding new parameters to the 0-1023 range, we should rather use higher ranges for "non-essential" type of extensions. Currently the text in RFC5201 about the ranges says: > > Parameters numbered between 0-1023 are used in HIP > handshake and update procedures and are covered by signatures. > Parameters numbered between 1024-2047 are reserved. Parameters > numbered between 2048-4095 are used for parameters related to HIP > transform types. Parameters numbered between 4096 and (2^16 - 2^12) > 61439 are reserved. > > The VIA and BONE extensions are not actually "handshake and update procedures", or "essential stuff", but we originally put the signed parameters OVERLAY_ID [1] and ROUTE_DST [2] there since the other possible ranges, according to the text above, were "reserved". > > However, better approach would be to use a higher range for this kind of extensions. For example, 4096-16383. Latest version of HICCUPS [3] already uses that range and we were planning to move the OVERLAY_ID and ROUTE_DST parameters there too (values 4592 and 4600, respectively), unless someone objects. I agree that the current assignments are way to coarse grained. However, I am not really convinced that putting all extensions into one big bucket is the solution we want. Right now we have a grouping based on functionality and security requirements (signed/unsigned, BEX, other stuff). I like that approach (and would like it even better if it was a bit more fine grained) because it allows implementors to classify parameters easily. Putting every extension into the same range would mean that you can only distinguish between extension and non-extension. I would rather try to come up with a sensible allocation based on functions (although I don't have one at hand right now). Maybe this could be one agenda item for the 5201-bis document crafting session? BR, Tobias > > > Cheers, > Ari > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-bone-07#section-6.1 > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-via-03#section-4.1 > [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hip-hiccups-05#section-4.1 > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec -- Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student Distributed Systems Group RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 207 76 web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer blog: http://dtobi.wordpress.com/ card: http://card.ly/dtobi
- [Hipsec] Updating parameter type values for VIA a… Ari Keranen
- Re: [Hipsec] Updating parameter type values for V… Tobias Heer
- Re: [Hipsec] Updating parameter type values for V… Ari Keranen
- Re: [Hipsec] Updating parameter type values for V… Robert Moskowitz
- [Hipsec] DEX parameters and parameter usage (was:… Tobias Heer
- [Hipsec] Parameter space design (was: Updating pa… Tobias Heer
- Re: [Hipsec] DEX parameters and parameter usage Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] Parameter space design Ari Keranen