Subject: [Hipsec] multipath transmission

From: Andrei Gurtov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:40:09 +0200

Hi,

We've been discussing with Tom on integrating text on multipath
scheduler in HIP to the new multihoming draft. Do you think that's a
good idea? The section would be more like advanced/optional feature in
the document which is not mandatory to implement. The actual idea is
described in following papers

A. Gurtov, T. Polishchuk, Secure Multipath Transport for Legacy Internet
Applications, in Proc. of BROADNETS'09, September 2009.
T. Polishchuk, A. Gurtov, Improving TCP-friendliness for mHIP , to
appear in Proc. of 5th International Conference on Access Networks
(ACCESSNETS'10), November 2010.
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/gurtov/papers/

BR
Andrei

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:42:09 +0200

Hi,

nice work! I believe it justifies a document of its own. My suggestion 
would be a new research group document because the work is still based 
on simulations, lacks interoperability results and experimentation in 
the wild. I'd also like to see the existing mobility and multihoming 
draft to make rapid progress rather than being blocked by new extensions.

On 11/08/2010 05:40 PM, Andrei Gurtov wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkzYGdkACgkQP7jp0uceFkR+EQCaAjpyN5Fwx8CtCyQt87sQYh3c
> K6QAoIiExYIEEzXY/O6Zz15FyYS3aGeR
> =RcFd
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Andrei Gurtov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:14:59 +0200

Actually there is a Linux implementation and experiments. The paper is
under review currently and I'll post a link after it has been accepted.

Regarding interoperability, I don't think multihoming in general was
ever tested for HIP implementations.

As I mentioned, this part can go to a separate optional section and
could provide additional motivation for the WG document rather than
being simple fault-over multihoming.

Andrei

---

From: Bokor Laszlo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:25:31 +0100

Dear Andrei,

> ever tested for HIP implementations.

Knowing that this is not a real-life implementation, but here you can
find our research paper presenting HIP-based multihoming and flow
mobility ("per-application mobility") implemented and tested as an
INET/OMNeT++ simulation:

http://www.ict-optimix.eu/images/0/0a/Protocol_Design_and_Analysis_of_a_HIP-based_Per-Application_Mobility_Management_Platform_PDF.pdf

Best regards,
Laszlo

--
László BOKOR
Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME)
Department of Telecommunications (HIT) - Mobile Innovation Centre (MIK)
Tel: +36-1-463-3420, Fax: +36-1-463-3307
web: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~bokorl

2010/11/11 Andrei Gurtov <[email-masked]>:
> iEYEARECAAYFAkzbpgMACgkQP7jp0uceFkRxbwCcD0uSzF+6vJ5ItmFiVQ+hqSEm
> Hc4AoL/iLjePh4py8JrlRUlMPUsvG0vO
> =Q6+Y