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

Miika Komu <mkomu@cs.hut.fi> Mon, 11 October 2010 08:58 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 C8DB23A6941 for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.316
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, 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 KQXmP-Fg17EO for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7740C3A691F for <shim6@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 01:58:34 -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 1P5EEP-0006vQ-3q; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:59:41 +0300
Message-ID: <4CB2D1FC.9020904@cs.hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:59:40 +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: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4CB22ED9.30204@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "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 08:58:38 -0000

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...