Re: [shim6] AD review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api

Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> Thu, 14 October 2010 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
X-Original-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41ABA3A6A6E for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 d0A+Dcl3tMad for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6045B3A6A0A for <shim6@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hutcs.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.192.10] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.hut.fi with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1P6UIE-0000yC-2P; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:20:50 +0300
Message-ID: <4CB76621.8070401@cs.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:20:49 +0300
From: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shinta Sugimoto <shinta@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
References: <20100816114202.1241.59079.idtracker@localhost> <4C692876.60802@ cs.hut.fi> <4535F52C-8E78-4CBE-8983-DD7195722865@apnic.net> <4C69DE84.80107 06@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <4C91D119.5010101@cs.hut.fi> <4C91E946.6080807@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <4C920431.2090603@cs.hut.fi> <86C69B19-D385-46A9-B116-5EE198273305@apnic.ne t> <4CAA425E.2070906@piuha.net> <4CAEB35B.3020107@cs.hut.fi> <4CAEDEAD.9060407@piuha.net> <4CAF01F6.3030905@cs.hut.fi> <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CEC451999@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4CB56F2F.6040008@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4CB56F2F.6040008@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: shim6 <shim6@ietf.org>, "kristian.slavov@ericsson.com" <kristian.slavov@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [shim6] AD review of draft-ietf-shim6-multihome-shim-api
X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List <shim6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shim6>
List-Post: <mailto:shim6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:19:39 -0000

Hi,

>> The paper does point out a use case for sending data to a previously
>> unknown locator-- however, it seems to be slightly different than the
>> use case here. In the paper, the node learns of the address change and
>> it seems that the HIP daemon sends an Echo request-- I take this to
>> mean that the HIP daemon does this proactively. Here, we are talking
>> about applications triggering this directly and using this API to do
>> so since they may have learned of the address out of band?
>
> I wonder how the kernel does not know about the peer locator (IP
> address) but the application does. You mentioned that application could
> know the address out-of-band, but how? Do you have good examples?

yes, as I explained earlier:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shim6/current/msg02203.html