Re: [v4v6interim] Doesn't HIP solve this problem?

Fred,

I think you are spot on. A new session layer identifier namespace would
solve a lot of problems, but would require a new identifier mapping
system to link it back to the network layer and the routing system.
That's missing in HIP today (which is why we get a mishmash like
RFC 4843).

I suggest this line of discussion is closer to the RRG charter
than to BEHAVE.

    Brian

On 2008-10-26 10:15, Fred Baker wrote:
> no, at least I don't think so.
> 
> HIP tries to provide what RFC 1498 and 1753 call an "endpoint ID", but
> provides no way to associate locators with it. Hence, while from an
> application perspective it enables the application to ensure that the
> system or service it is talking with is the one it intends to, it
> doesn't enable the transport to select an address pair to use in routing
> - and yes, the choice of a source and a destination address has the
> effect of routing a session, as it determines important points that the
> datagram will transit.
> 
> Read all of RFCs 1483, 1753, 1992,
> http://ana.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt, and
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-nsrg-report for a complete
> discussion of the problem. Getting network folks and application folks
> to describe the problem is a little like describing the elephant - each
> only describes part.
> 
> On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> 
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 2008-10-21 00:26, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>> 4/ prefix delegation "bypass"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) is a non-issue for IPv6. (2) is solved with stateful
>>>>>> firewalling and
>>>>>> does not require NAT. 1:1 NAT fails to solve (3) as it does hide the
>>>>>> subnetting scheme, but fails to hide individual hosts. This leaves
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> (4). Did I miss anything?
>>>>> I think one main reason would be provider independence (ie. no need to
>>>>> renumber)  for small sites that cannot afford to have thier own PI
>>>>> address block allocated
>>>> That's prefix delegation/routing bypass.
>>>
>>> Yes. It avoids renumbering, and allows multihoming. It's very hard
>>> to stop this unless the RRG comes up with a miracle solution
>>> in the near future.
>>
>> Doesn't HIP solve this problem?
>>
>> -- 
>> Marc Petit-Huguenin           [                                 ]
>> Home: marc@petit-huguenin.org [RFC1855-compliant space for rent ]
>> Work: marc@8x8.com            [                                 ]
>> [                                                               ]
>> _______________________________________________
>> 46translation mailing list
>> 46translation@employees.org
>> https://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/46translation
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim