Fred Templin wrote:
... but do you truly have an alternate proposal that will work for intermittently-connected/disconnected sites, sites that frequently change provider points of attachment, multi-homed sites, etc? I asked others the same question and they mumbled something about HIP but ducked my pointed questions as to how soon we could expect to see an alternate proposal.
As far as I see, HIP does not currently provide anything for intermittently-conneted/disconnnected sites. Perhaps it could, but AFAIK nobody has *seriously* considered that question. (My gut feeling is that if HIP was adopted, the nature of this and many other questions would change quite a lot. But that is just an educated guess, at best.)
.... So, unless there is some grand solution currently being architected in some skunkworks project out of the public eye ... (And if there is such a stealth mode project in the works, I think it high time that it be fully disclosed to the community in good faith.)
I don't know about any skunkwork projects. However, since HIP was mentioned, perhaps I should try to clarify the situation.
There was a HIP mailing list for a long time @lists.freeswan.org. However, due to hardware problems the list crashed three times during the last year or so, losing its membership at least once, and the archive at least once, too. (I don't remember the details).
Anyway, there is now a new HIP mailing list @honor.trusecure.com, see http://honor.trusecure.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec We tried to subscribe everybody we knew about to the new mailing list, but I am sure some addresses just got lost. If you are interested, please join to the new mailing list. It is currently very low volume, but may get some traffic fairly soon (see below). However, I don't expect it to get anywhere near IPNG volumes...
What comes to the architecture and base protocol specs, they are fairly close to be ready for experimental. On the other hand, serious work on multi-homing, mobility, IPv4 NAT traversal and DNS issues has only recently begun, and requires lots of work before completed.
As I mentioned at the multi6 meeting in Vienna, there are currently four interoperating implementations, at least two of which also support limited HIP based mobility. At least one even supports mobility between IPv6 and IPv4. I am not aware of any implementations that would seriously support multi-homing, even though some support for that is in draft-nikander-hip-mm-00.txt
There are also some discussions going on with some ADs about the possibility of a working group that would produce experimental RFCs. However, it is not clear whether such a group, if created, should be a working group or an IRTF research group. That is an issue that should be discussed fairly soon at the hipsec ML.
--Pekka Nikander
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
