Hi, On 11/05/12 00:57, Tobias Heer wrote: > Hi, > > Am 10.05.2012 um 10:56 schrieb Xin Gu: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I am a developer from HIPL project and working on HIPv2 related >> functionalities under Miika's instruction. We have found some gaps in the >> transition process from HIPv1 to HIPv2. My question is: do we expect a >> smooth transition from HIPv1 to HIPv2 or we simply want to wipe out HIPv1? >> >> No matter what the answer it will be, we think it is still worthwhile to >> describe those gaps we met, because we might face similar transition >> problems again when HIPv3 comes out. Below is the description: >> >> In order to provide a smooth transition from HIPv1 to HIPv2, we start to >> prototype a dual version support HIPL, which aims to handle HIPv1 and HIPv2 >> association at the same time. If the version of the inbound I1 is one, the >> HIPL host continues a HIPv1 BEX; If the version of the inbound I1 is two, >> the host goes with a HIPv2 BEX. >> >> However the new OGA bits in HIPv2 adds new gaps to this approach. The >> introduction of OGA bits changes the presentation of a key in HIPv1 HIT and >> HIPv2 HIT and a host cannot tell a HIT contains OGA bits or not solely >> (although there is a very low possibility that v1 HIT and v2 HIT for a same >> key are identical). > > As far as I remember, we discussed a new prefix for the new version of the > ORCHID. This would make the distinction trivial. > > Will this solve your problem?
perhaps the transition mechanism should be explicitly mentioned in the bis draft. It's not only important for HIPv2 but also for HIPv3 if such will ever come. _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
