Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-30: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-hip-dex-13: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Hi Bob/Jeff,
> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:09 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/4/20 10:53 AM, Jeff Ahrenholz wrote:
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-codes-5
>>>
>>> And nothing there that looks right.
>>>
>>> So what is
Ben,
thank you for the serious, in-depth, review. It will take a bit to work
through your comments.
vis-a-vis, LAKE.
It would be seriously challenging, and interesting, to review the
long-standing work on HIP-DEX with the new work on LAKE. If so, I would
end up throwing in to remove all
On 3/4/20 10:53 AM, Jeff Ahrenholz wrote:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-codes-5
And nothing there that looks right.
So what is done in HIP BEX implementations? Both v1 and v2?
For our HIPv1 implementation:
IPv4 packets - we
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-codes-5
>
> And nothing there that looks right.
>
> So what is done in HIP BEX implementations? Both v1 and v2?
For our HIPv1 implementation:
IPv4 packets - we send ICMPv4-in-UDP with type 12
This looks more like an RFC 7401 problem than a HIP-DEX problem; as DEX
inherits this from 7401. In fact it is an RFC 5201 problem!
It looks like Suresh is correct that a code is needed and in sec 3.4 of
RFC 2463 a code is need..
I looked at:
