Hi all, I recently published the version -07 draft of RFC5206-bis
(mobility support in HIP). This was merely a refresh of -06; I'd like
to now start moving through and closing the remaining open issues so we
can get the document into shape for WGLC.
I made a pass through the document and plan to publish the following
(IMO) minor changes in version -08 next week, if there are no
objections. Separately, I will start threads on remaining open issues
that require some discussion on the list.
Section 3.2 Protocol Overview
------------------------------
The draft states:
However, some implementations may want to experiment with sending
LOCATOR_SET parameters also on other packets, such as R1, I2, and
NOTIFY.
I propose to delete this sentence since we are no longer experimental;
later in the document (section 5.3), it states that:
A host SHOULD be prepared to receive a LOCATOR_SET parameter in the
following HIP packets: R1, I2, UPDATE, and NOTIFY.
and it leaves open to the implementation (Section 5.2) when to send such
a packet. More on this later.
(also) Section 3.2:
------------------
The draft states:
The scenarios below at times describe addresses as being in either an
ACTIVE, VERIFIED, or DEPRECATED state.
'VERIFIED' is a typo; it should be 'UNVERIFIED'
3.2.1 Mobility with a Single SA Pair (No Rekeying)
---------------------------------------------------
The draft states:
This first example considers the
case in which the mobile host has only one interface, IP address, a
single pair of SAs (one inbound, one outbound), and no rekeying
I propose to clarify 'IP address' as rather 'one IP address in use
within the HIP session', since it is seldom the case now that hosts have
one IP address system-wide, and what is really intended here is to talk
about the case for which there is only one IP address in use.
3.2.3. Using LOCATOR_SETs across Addressing Realms
--------------------------------------------------
I propose to delete this section for now; we have an open issue
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/5) to better define
cross-family handovers, and I'd like to later propose different text
based on the work published in "Secure and Efficient IPv4/IPv6 Handovers
Using Host-based Identifier-Locator Split" by Varjonen et al.
4.3 UPDATE Packet with Included LOCATOR_SET
--------------------------------------------
There is a sentence that says:
The
sending of multiple LOCATOR_SET and/or ESP_INFO parameters is for
further study; receivers may wish to experiment with supporting such
a possibility.
I propose to delete this since supporting it is more complicated and I
am not sure of the use case.
5.1. Locator Data Structure and Status
--------------------------------------
The draft states:
In a typical implementation, each outgoing locator is represented by
a piece of state that contains the following data:
I propose to clarify this by deleting 'outgoing locator' and replacing
with 'locator known about the peer' since outgoing might be interpreted
instead as the source address.
I would also like to add these two sentences to the end of this subsection:
In addition, an implementation would typically maintain similar
state about its own locators offered to the peer.
Finally, the locators used to establish the HIP association are
by default assumed to be the initial preferred locators in
ACTIVE state, with an unbounded lifetime.
5.2. Sending LOCATOR_SETs
-------------------------
The lead sentence states:
The decision of when to send LOCATOR_SETs is basically a local policy
issue.
I propose to add: "LOCATOR_SET parameters MAY be included in HIP packet
types of R1, I2, R2, UPDATE, and NOTIFY."
We have previously not included R2 in this list, but the work published
in "Secure and Efficient IPv4/IPv6 Handovers Using Host-based
Identifier-Locator Split" by Varjonen et al. discussed some benefits
found by allowing the parameter also in R2.
There is also a paragraph that states:
Note that the purpose of announcing IP addresses in a LOCATOR_SET is
to provide connectivity between the communicating hosts. In most
cases, tunnels or virtual interfaces such as IPsec tunnel interfaces
or Mobile IP home addresses provide sub-optimal connectivity.
Furthermore, it should be possible to replace most tunnels with HIP
based "non-tunneling", therefore making most virtual interfaces
fairly unnecessary in the future. Therefore, virtual interfaces
SHOULD NOT be announced in general. On the other hand, there are
clearly situations where tunnels are used for diagnostic and/or
testing purposes. In such and other similar cases announcing the IP
addresses of virtual interfaces may be appropriate.
I'd like to reduce this to the following:
Locators corresponding to tunnel interfaces (e.g. IPsec tunnel
interfaces or Mobile IP home addresses) or other virtual
interfaces MAY be announced in a LOCATOR_SET, but implementations
SHOULD avoid announcing such locators as preferred locators if
more direct paths may be obtained by instead preferring locators
from non-virtual interfaces.
5.3. Handling Received LOCATOR_SETs
-----------------------------------
The draft states:
A host SHOULD be prepared to receive a LOCATOR_SET parameter in the
following HIP packets: R1, I2, UPDATE, and NOTIFY.
Similar to the proposal in 5.2 above, I'd like to change to:
A host SHOULD be prepared to receive a LOCATOR_SET parameter in the
following HIP packets: R1, I2, R2, UPDATE, and NOTIFY.
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
