Hi,
Gonzalo asked to bring remaining issues to the list, so let's revive the
discussion around the mobility extensions.
On 01/12/2015 08:33 PM, Tom Henderson wrote:
I just published version 8 of RFC5206-bis (mobility), and version 5 of
the multihoming draft. These updates make the changes that were
discussed on the list in December; in summary, the updates were mainly
about moving additional material related to multihoming from the
RFC5206-bis draft to the multihoming draft.
The next update I plan to make is to add a description of how UPDATEs
may be forwarded through rendezvous servers, to handle the double jump
mobility scenario. There isn't any discussion about what to do when
UPDATEs are not acknowledged, so I propose to suggest that, upon failure
of obtaining an ACK to an UPDATE from a peer, the host should try any
other addresses that it knows about, and if those also fail, try to send
the UPDATE to the peer's rendezvous server (if known).
There were 13 open issues in the tracker against RFC5206-bis, but upon
review, many of them are multihoming questions, so I reassigned several
of them to the multihoming draft. Here are the issues against
RFC5206-bis that I see remaining.
Issue 8: decouple locator announcement from SA creation
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/8
"Need to make sure that revised specifications handle the use case of
decoupling locator announcements from SA creation (as well as the case
of integrating them)"
how?
Issue 9: some implementations lack some of the compulsory UPDATE
features, so maybe they should not be mandatory
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/9
"Note from Baris Boyvat that some mandatory UPDATE features in RFC5206
are not supported by implementations, so perhaps they should not be
mandatory."
hmm, what was this about?
Issue 12: sending UPDATE via rendezvous server (discussed above)
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/12
"Note: This tracker issue depends on Issue 1 that Julien filed for RFC
5204. At least one implementation supports this feature."
this should fixed for double jump. And we should decide which document
(mobility vs. rendezvous) to use describing mobility extensions.
Issue 15: suggestion for naming UPDATE packets
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/15
"From Baris Boyvat: "There is always three UPDATE packet sent for a
mobility event. In HIPL this fact was not explicitly used in the
implementation before, which made the implementation quite complex. I
would suggest to explicitly quality the UPDATE packets numbers, etc.
UPDATE1, UPDATE2, UPDATE3 which would in a way force people to think in
that terms.
Otherwise, when dealing with different UPDATE scenarios, SEQ, ACK
handling, retransmissions,etc conceptualization become very difficult.
Actually if possible, I would suggest to nicely separate these concepts
so that they can be easily modularized in an implementation. I'm not
sure, it's common for RFCs but this can be done in a "implementation
recommendation" form."
At least the packet renaming could be done easily.
Related to this, I have also privately suggested Thomas to describe a
simple state machine for mobility management. I have described the state
machine a long time ago:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg01745.html
This could be also omitted if the authors do not have enough time, or
included as an implementation note in the appendix.
My biggest concern is that how can we make further UPDATE extensions
possible (i.e. how to signal that that a host does not support a new
extension X), while making the UPDATE procedure a bit more specific?
Issue 21: UPDATE signature and HI inclusion
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/21
I think we should definitely fix this issue. This is important
especially with HIP-based firewalls and mobile hosts. And it is rather
easy to fix.
Issue 23: Allow Locator fields to have flow bindings
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/hip/trac/ticket/23
"draft-cao-hiprg-flow-mobility-00 proposes to use RFC6089 flow bindings
fields with HIP. Although the draft proposes a new locator type, we
should consider to just extend the base LOCATOR to allow this."
This should affect mainly the multihoming specification, right?
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
