I am hoping to draw the HIP discussion from the "Rejecting all but Strategy A" thread into this thread with an appropriate title.
No-one has proposed HIP or anything related to HIP as an actual solution to the routing scaling problem. However, I understand we are discussing how HIP might be used for this purpose, in which case I think it would match, perhaps not exactly, Bill's Strategy B: http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html The HIP RFCs and an overview are: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5201 Main http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5202 EPS http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5203 Registration extension http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5204 Rendezvous extension http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5205 DNS extension http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5206 End-Host Mobility & Multihoming http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5207 NAT and Firewall Traversal http://infrahip.hiit.fi/index.php?index=how There were several HIP related messages on 5 January. Here I list the most recent ones, from Pekka Nikander, Thomas Henderson, Scott Brim and Fred Templin: http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2009-January/000741.html PN "HIP-Proxy" as as a version of "HIP mobile router": http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melen-hip-mr-01 Two additional designs: 1. LISP xTR-xTR protocol is replaced with the HIP protocol (providing the additional mobility and security features HIP provides). 2. One where the initial xTR->xTR opening message is a hybrid that indicates that the sender understands both LISP and HIP, allowing the receiver to pick which one to use. http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2009-January/000742.html PN Advantages and disadvantages of above approach(es). http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2009-January/000743.html PN Discussion with Dino on how the above approach(es) might compare with (or be combined with?) LISP. http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2009-January/000745.html TH Distinctions between "xTR" (I think this means LISP and other core-edge separation solutions) and HIP / HIP-proxy. http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2009-January/000746.html TH Pointer to slides describing Boeing's experience with HIP to provide secure Layer 2 VPN over untrusted wireless network - for instance in the airliner factory. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/HIPRG-0.pdf http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2009-January/000747.html SB "Mapping" in HIP? Potential problems with pushing path selection (as an example) responsibility to hosts. http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/2009-January/000748.html FT HIP: HIT = identity iRLOC = inner routing locator oRLOC = outer routing locator LISP (and perhaps others): EID ~= iRLOC RLOC ~= oRLOC - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
