RE: Updated HIP mobility & multi-homing draft

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

Hi Pekka,

If i understand it correctly, the draft essentially specifies the required
mecnahins and extensions to the HIP protocol to safely modify the set of
addresses that can be used by two communicating hosts to reach each other.
While this is a fundamental part of a mechanism to preserve established
communications in multi-homed and mobile environments, it is not by itselt
enough to provide multi-homing nor mobility support.
Additional mechanisms and tools are required to preserve established
communications both in mobile and multihomed environments, including
mechanisms to deal with ingress filtering (multi-homing and mobility),
detect movment (mobility), detect outages (multi-homing), locator selection
for initial contact, etc.

It would be interesting to try to understand how HIP (and the extensions
presented in this draft ) can deal with all these issues, so it can provide
a complete solution to preserve established communications.
You mention that another draft is comming, perhaps are you planning to
inlcude all the rest of the issues in this next draft?

Thanks for the draft, regards, marcelo

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org]En
> nombre de Pekka Nikander
> Enviado el: lunes, 29 de diciembre de 2003 9:15
> Para: hipsec@honor.trusecure.com
> CC: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Updated HIP mobility & multi-homing draft
>
>
> I've posted an updated version of the HIP mobility
> and multi-homing draft to the repositories.  In the
> mean time, it is available from the following URLs.
>
> http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/HIP/draft-nikander-hip-mm-01.txt
> http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/HIP/draft-nikander-hip-mm-01.html
> http://www.tml.hut.fi/~pnr/HIP/draft-nikander-hip-mm-01.xml
>
> This version is *considerably* different from the previous
> one, in the sense that it has been fully integrated with
> the new NES mechanism.  The AC and ACR packets are gone.
> It is quite hard to understand the protocol without knowing
> the details of the base HIP protocol.
>
> I'd like to get some feedback of the approach.  My belief is
> that the new approach will result in less code, provided that
> the hosts already implement NES (which is mandatory in HIP).
> However, it is also appear harder to understand.
>
> I'm now starting to work on another draft, which will explain
> the HIP multihoming mechanism from a multi6 point of view.
>
> --Pekka Nikander
>
>