Sorry for sounding like a broken record player, but I have a strong
deja vu.
Not so interesting but it gets better if the host identifier is
added to the DNS record.
RFC5205
By adding a host identifier to the DNS record the NAPT box could
accept traffic from the Internet and redirect it to the correct host
in the private network.
See draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-08.txt and draft-melen-spinat-01.txt
for two different ways.
How then to achieve multi-homing?
RFC5206
If this is really doable the outcome is that PI-addresses are no
longer attractive, you can publish services towards Internet with your
internal addressing scheme - the routing architecture of an
organization is an internal affair and Internet doesn't need to know
about how it is constructed. But still external customers, partners
etc. can reach your published services with the help of the host
identifier.
I completely agree. Those were some of our goals.
It seems that adding a host identifier to the Internet architecture
will provide better visibility of end-to-end connectivity and at the
same time hide more the routing architecture, interesting...
I think we wrote something about those already in RFC4423. (And
others before that, see e.g. NIMROD...)
-------
[Then I hear all the usual objections on HIP from the list. To them:
Yes, you can use HIP without ESP (but we still need someone to define
exact how). Yes, we can use HIP without public key crypto, see draft-
heer-hip-lhip-00.txt. No, architecturally HIP does not necessarily
add packet size as it can use any flow identifier as a proxy for host
identifier. No, HIP does not necessarily add delay when opening TCP
with legacy hosts, draft-lindqvist-hip-tcp-piggybacking-00.txt.
Ducking back wondering why people want to invent the same again and
again...]
--Pekka Nikander
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
