Subject: [Hipsec] HIP Registration problem

From: "zfhu2001" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 17:48:25 +0800

Hi all,

    As we know, a mobile node registers its HIP and IP address binding to a correponding RVS server, but now I'm wondering whether the MN will register to a new RVS if a mobile node moves to another network and simultaneously its previous RVS server does not work any more. Or does HIP provide a mechanisim as DAAP of MIP to detect the serving RVS server of its home area?
Thanks.

2010-11-04 

Zhangfeng HU, PhD candidate of
Broadband Network Research Center,
State Key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology, 
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China

Email:[email-masked]
Tel:86+13811892137

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2010 12:47:38 +0200

On 11/04/2010 11:48 AM, zfhu2001 wrote:
> Hi all,
> As we know, a mobile node registers its HIP and IP address binding to a 
> correponding RVS server, but now I'm wondering whether the MN will 
> register to a new RVS if a mobile node moves to another network and 
> simultaneously its previous RVS server does not work any more. Or does 
> HIP provide a mechanisim as DAAP of MIP to detect the serving RVS server 
> of its home area?
> Thanks.
> 2010-11-04

Hi,

there's no such thing as "home agent" or "home area" in HIP. This is one
of the differences to MIP. The same rendezvous server can be reused
independently of the current network using the UPDATE procedure.
Remember also that the rendezvous server forwards only the first I1 or
the first UPDATE packet, so it's still a light-weight operation even
though the latency be longer. The rendezvous server does not forward any
application payload.

Fault-tolerance for RVS may fall into the category of local policies
(?). Changing the "current" RVS requires also an update to the DNS
records. Another strategy could be just to publish multiple RVS servers
in the DNS and send packets to all of them (which ever happens to be alive).

---

From: "Zhangfeng HU" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:03:58 +0800

Hi,
yes, that's the truth. Since HIP does provide a mechanism as DAAP of MIP, we are just considering a method of providing fault torlerance for RVS in HIP. For some mobile nodes, the high availability is very important, however the availability of these mobile nodes is mostly decided by the availability of the corresponding RVS who serves them. This RVS fault torlerance can not be easily implemented through updating the entries in DNS, because of the high latency and the cache mechanism used in DNS.

2010-11-08 

Email:[email-masked]
Tel:86+13811892137

发件人： Miika Komu 
发送时间： 2010-11-04  18:47:45 
收件人： hipsec 
抄送： 
主题： Re: [Hipsec] HIP Registration problem 
 
Hi,
there's no such thing as "home agent" or "home area" in HIP. This is one
of the differences to MIP. The same rendezvous server can be reused
independently of the current network using the UPDATE procedure.
Remember also that the rendezvous server forwards only the first I1 or
the first UPDATE packet, so it's still a light-weight operation even
though the latency be longer. The rendezvous server does not forward any
application payload.
Fault-tolerance for RVS may fall into the category of local policies
(?). Changing the "current" RVS requires also an update to the DNS
records. Another strategy could be just to publish multiple RVS servers
in the DNS and send packets to all of them (which ever happens to be alive).
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
ÔÚ´«ÈëµÄÓÊ¼þÖÐÎ´·¢ÏÖ²¡¶¾¡£
¼ì²é¹¤¾ß£ºAVG - www.avg.com 
°æ±¾£º9.0.865 / ²¡¶¾Êý¾Ý¿â£º271.1.1/3235 - ·¢²¼ÈÕÆÚ£º11/03/10 16:36:00

---

From: Andrew McGregor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:28:52 +0800

Register with several and use DNS round-robin, or just talk to all of them at once.  That's probably good enough, I think.

Andrew

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:53:14 +0200

Hi,

agree with Andrew. We've had already a related discussion on parallel 
connectivity checks which applies to rendezvous as well:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg02837.html

On 11/08/2010 05:28 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Register with several and use DNS round-robin, or just talk to all of
> them at once. That's probably good enough, I think.
>
> Andrew
>
>> yes, that's the truth. Since HIP does provide a mechanism as DAAP of
>> MIP, we are just considering a method of providing fault torlerance
>> for RVS in HIP. For some mobile nodes, the high availability is very
>> important, however the availability of these mobile nodes is mostly
>> decided by the availability of the corresponding RVS who serves them.
>> This RVS fault torlerance can not be easily implemented through
>> updating the entries in DNS, because of the high latency and the cache
>> mechanism used in DNS.
>> 2010-11-08
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Email:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> Tel:86+13811892137
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *发件人：* Miika Komu
>> *发送时间：* 2010-11-04 18:47:45
>> *收件人：* hipsec
>> *抄送：*
>> *主题：* Re: [Hipsec] HIP Registration problem
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>> ¼ì²é¹¤¾ß£ºAVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>