Subject: [Hipsec] Rendezvous and tunneling

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:41:18 +0100

Hi folks,

At the HIP session during the last IETF, I asked wether or not we 
wanted to keep tunneling as an option in the _simple_ Rendezvous 
Extensions. I was proposing to keep only the header rewriting 
features of the RVS, and let the PATH/NAT traversal document handle 
the case of UDP tunneling. 

Furthermore, IMHO ESP tunneling is useless because it requires 
preservation of the source address (with a FROM) anyway, so there's 
no added functionallity/value compared to header rewriting, it is 
just more complex. Furthermore, now that we splitted-out ESP from the 
base spec, it seems consistent to do the same thing w.r.t. simple RVS 
extensions. 

The few people who expressed an opinion at the HIP session seems to 
agree with that proposal.

So I have now three questions before I begin another pass of edition:

1) Should we get rid of I1_TUNNELING mode?

2) Should we get rid of BIDIRECTIONAL mode? If not, what is the usage 
scenario you have in mind?

3) Should we specify that the RVS relays I1 _and_ UPDATES? This is 
required to support double-movement in mobility scenarios.

Thanks.

--julien
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://honor.trusecure.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:42:53 +0200 (EET)

> 1) Should we get rid of I1_TUNNELING mode?

To further simplify the rendezvous, I'd say yes. Unless someone has a good
use case for this.

> scenario you have in mind?

Seems of little use...

> required to support double-movement in mobility scenarios.

Yes.

-- 
Miika Komu              [email-masked]          http://www.iki.fi/miika/
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://honor.trusecure.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:01:07 +0200

Folks,

On Wednesday 23 March 2005 13:41, Julien Laganier wrote:

(...)

> 2) Should we get rid of BIDIRECTIONAL mode? If not, what is the
> usage scenario you have in mind?
>

So far I only get one answer (from Miika) to the questions above. 
Hence, if nobody objects, I will modify the hip-rvs draft accordingly 
and send it to the list for feedback.

Thanks.

--julien