Re: [shim6] Unknown destination locator [was: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api]

Cases 1 and 3 make sense to me. Maybe for case 2 it should be SHOULD
reject the request (because we might have some future shim design
that works differently). Or add a note that the rules may need to be
modified for some future shim design.

Thanks
   Brian

On 2009-12-23 06:37, Shinta Sugimoto wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As pointed out by HIP experts (Thomas and Miika), we need to consider exceptional case for HIP when the application sets unknown destination locator for the socket.  Such an exceptional handling will allow application to provide the destination locator to the HIP.
> 
> 1. The multihoming shim sub-layer checks if address family of the socket is AF_INET6 (all the SHIM6 cases would fall into this case).  If so, the shim must reject the request.
> 2. Otherwise, the shim checks if there is any multihome shim context associated with the socket.  If there is any, the shim must reject the request.
> 3. If there is none, and the multihome shim sub-layer turns out to be HIP, the shim SHOULD accept the request (accordingly, the shim being HIP implementation will probably initiate HIP basic exchange by sending I1 packet to the requested locator)
> 
> Does the above make sense?  Please comment.
> 
> Regards,
> Shinta
> _______________________________________________
> shim6 mailing list
> shim6@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6
> 