[Hipsec-rg] Re: Native HIP API questions in the hipsec-rg meeting

[[e-mail] (Henderson, Thomas R)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 9:20 PM
> To: Tim Shepard
> Cc: Lars Eggert; Miika Komu; [e-mail]; Andrew
> McGregor
> Subject: [Hipsec-rg] Re: Native HIP API questions in the hipsec-rg
> meeting

>=20
> I always thought of HIP has having two uses:
>=20
> 	1. given global IDs and a rendezvous IP address, start a
> 	connection with that ID via the rendezvous. either the
> 	rendezvous point forwards the connection request, or replies
> 	with further info on how to find that ID
>=20
> 	2. given an initial IP address, go there and get an ID
> 	that is unique only to you and that end; allow the endpoints
> 	to move once established, based on keeping that ID
>=20
> I always though of HIP as focusing on (2); (1) is somewhat=20
> nonsensical,=20
> as Tim points out above.=20
>

If HIP focused on (2), then it would seem to just be a heavyweight=20
version of purpose built keys or TCP-migrate or similar proposals.

I've always thought of HIP of having most applicability when upper=20
layer protocols including applications would prefer to name end=20
systems by a global ID.  In general, this requires a resolution
infrastructure, but one can get part of the way there perhaps
by using DNS and/or certificate chains.

Tom

 =20