Folks, I've been thinking a bit more about the update of RFC5204 / Rendezvous Server support. See below:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julien Laganier <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] > - 5204bis (rendezvous) needs one more subsection regarding relaying of > the UPDATE packet to support double jump of mobile nodes. As this > isn't really useful without the mobility support my proposal is to > tackle this one together with the 5206bis. I figured two things: 1- relaying an UPDATE packet is pointless in the absence of HIP mobility support on both endpoints. 2- support for rendezvous server is useful independently of support for HIP mobility. Taking both 1. and 2. into account, my conclusion is that it makes sense to keep the rendezvous server support self-contained in 5203bis, i.e., without a normative dependency to the mobility support in 5206bis, while 5206 would specify an extension to rendezvous mechanism for support of relaying UPDATE packets. Makes sense? --julien _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
