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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 11 October 2010 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 539983A6869 for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.385
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fAo4OVq5t4g0 for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366AF3A6864 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so957972vws.31 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XpXhyG5wnBLe4HG69D2oBNEX7y0+WfmsChCq8DxZMzI=; b=hFJO+BeKlAb1Lee/JcPJOfd+tUzaDf7LFnFENzviReFFtDaVO1GexBvD//zisr56R6 8Z7LIIZjr3r5Qx+tWJRCorA9ebKoZqUS9M4Gvc/dqkbaHDJArRGa9yogCE1enDGnRtKD c9pSln2qQeyOnu15DZjdJTQ4LvkSns/r1Gc7c=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=aeyx/6w0++AGUYouqdoHKPEAXm+7ocu8kYS6R0tZmIaeMfCpAoINSetGTXsStTrSrf 98cC5+fUnzDJKYAanklaUKFQlvTUrcC2ZTmXw0kQoGpRP/V0USko5Fla4aYTc/6+A2fc R1SJl9bDYr6PxaRnU32n/SsIhytvjPIUUVGvU=
Received: by 10.220.86.213 with SMTP id t21mr1889723vcl.253.1286832934204; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.142.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y14sm2217351vch.4.2010.10.11.14.35.31 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4CB3831C.900@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:35:24 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
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> <4C69DE84.8010706@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.net> <4CAA425E.2070906@piuha.net> <4CB08B71.4000000@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <4CB22ED9.30204@piuha.net> <4CB2D1FC.9020904@cs.hut.fi> <4CB33102.7010006@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4CB33102.7010006@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi>, "shim6@ietf.org" <shim6@ietf.org>, Kristian Slavov <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: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:34:23 -0000

On 2010-10-12 04:45, Shinta Sugimoto wrote:
> Hi Miika,
> 
> (10/10/11 17:59), Miika Komu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/11/2010 12:23 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>
>>>> Peer's locator set
>>>> is provided by the peer, and a node cannot propose peer's locator. I
>>>> believe it's the same for HIP. Let me clarify this point with Miika
>>>> off-line.
>>>
>>> OK. I think the simplest solution would be to simply forbid the API user
>>> from inserting unknown locators. If you want to go beyond that it is of
>>> course possible, but will complicate things.
>>
>> it is a very useful feature if the application can provide at least the
>> initial mapping from the destination HIT to the corresponding IP
>> address. Contrast to SHIM6, HIP does not have routable ULIDs...
>>
> 
> Could you please tell me what is the current practice? How the
> destination IP address (locator) is determined on the initiator in
> normal case?

RFC 3484, or whatever the implementor has chosen to do if they
don't like RFC 3484.

    Brian

> 
> I assume that the kernel first knows the peer's IP address (locator)
> from the DNS. If there are more than one IP address returned, then the
> kernel will pick one, I assume. What motivates application to specify
> the initial peer locator? Why it's *very* useful for application to
> specify the address?
> 
> Regards,
> Shinta
> _______________________________________________
> shim6 mailing list
> shim6@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6
>