Subject: Re: [multipathtcp] multipath TCP/HIP

From: Andrei Gurtov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:29:11 +0300

> While HIP provides better security, it also comes with the cost of 
> having that high security.
A fair statement, but if you use plain TCP you might be using the latest 
crypto security fixes from TCPM plus return routability checks to avoid 
redirection attacks, plus crypto address ownership checks so you would 
end up to something not very far from HIP.
In terms of net neutrality debate at the last IETF, IPsec is a good way 
to avoid Deep packet inspection and other nasty tricks ISPs make.
> Also, AFAICT, I think that Shim6 seems easier to deploy than HIP in 
> the Internet, since Shim6 uses a particular locator as identifer, 
> rather than a non-routable HIT.
Shim6 might be better handling referrals, but it's v6 only and the 
current Internet is pretty much v4 still.
A good thing for shim6 that it supports one-ended connections better 
than HIP.
> Since IPsec is probably not always required, my guess is that it would 
> be nice to consider a multipath TCP
> able to run on either one of HIP or shim6.
Yes, I think the best for the MPTCP  WG would be to produce experimental 
multipath congestion control specs without specifying at which layer 
it's implemented.

Andrei