Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 & 06 -bis
Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Fri, 16 September 2016 11:49 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 7000612B113 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 04:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, 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 cvbNW8K8gGKa for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 04:49:43 -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 7132012B02A for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 04:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5807C6093E; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 07:49:42 -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 kZ1rADUFbKOY; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 07:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (246.sub-174-201-17.myvzw.com [174.201.17.246]) (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 D98FE6218A; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 07:48:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1609152257460.24569@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <fb5704fd-f099-92d8-025b-4f3cee0acb4f@htt-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:45:27 +0100
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: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1609152257460.24569@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/zz5LQ3DnjGocmw1Yi4B1BS2nefY>
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:49:45 -0000
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". > >> 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. > >> >> This comment recommends changes to 5204-bis 4.2.3 that the main goal >> of VIA_RVS is to facilitate support for the double-jump mobility >> problem and secondarily "to allow operators ...". >> >> And to 5206-bis section 3.2.3 to use the VIA_RVS to 'know' that there >> is an RVS for the host and to optionally aggressively send HIP >> mobility UPDATES to the RVS. >> > > It seems to me that we ought to state that hosts should be prepared to > handle duplicate mobility updates sent in parallel to different > locators (such as to RVS(es) and to more than one of the host's > addresses). We could also state that the aggressiveness of a host > replicating its UPDATES to multiple destinations, to try them in > parallel instead of serially, is a policy choice outside of the > specification. Any other comments on this possible change? > > - Tom > >
- [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 & 06… Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 … Tom Henderson
- Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 … Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 … Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 … Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 … Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 … Miika Komu
- Re: [Hipsec] Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 … Robert Moskowitz