Subject: [Hipsec-rg] OpenHIP 0.3.4 release
From: thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com (Henderson, Thomas R)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:12:29 -0700

I'd like to announce a new release of OpenHIP software:
- alignment with current drafts including KHI revisions
- incorporation of Vivien Schmitt's (NEC Network Laboratories) UDP
tunneling extension
- IPv6 user-space HIP Linux support (previously, IPv6 required the
kernel-mode version)

The release can be found in the hipd project section of:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=132288

Our software roadmap is at http://www.openhip.org/develop.html.  The
current feature set is at
http://www.openhip.org/wiki/index.php?title=Usage#What_has_been_tested.
We are working on getting more of the features integrated across
platforms.

Thanks to Jeff Ahrenholz, Jeff Meegan, and Vivien Schmitt for supporting
this release.  We are always looking for new feedback and contributors.

Regards,
Tom

From: hannes.tschofenig at siemens.com (Tschofenig, Hannes)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:49:37 +0200
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Alfredo 

> Hi Hannes,
> 
> I agree with you regarding the language of the draft. The problem
> statement is fine. But reading through it, from beginning to 
> end, i get
> the feeling that it covers the solution space for potential middle box
> usage. I guess that this was not an objective of the draft, rather
> stating some examples, right ?

That's true. To make it simpler for people to understand I wanted to be a bit more specific. 
Maybe I explicitly need to denote them as examples. 

> 
> As for the second matter, yes it is in essence a NAT. Even 
> though in the
> protected area we make no assumptions on the technology, it could be
> IPv4, IPv6, or HIT (or even LSI) based routing, for the core 
> network we
> always assumed to be working with IPv6. If we do not assume that, than
> some modifications are in order, since the address pool could not be
> used, and we would have to resort to something like the mentioned
> tracking of <destination IP Address, SPI and protocol>, since it would
> be a "pure" NAT.

Got the point. 

Ciao
Hannes

> 
> BR,
> 
> Alfredo
> 
> Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
> > Hi Alfredo, 
> > 
> > it is true that you could also store a variation of the 
> state information mentioned in the draft. Maybe we should 
> soften the language a bit to ensure that the problem 
> statement draft does not yet describe potential solutions.
> > 
> > Btw, with your proposal you seem to use the middlebox as a 
> NAT. As you mentioned there is the problem with maintaining a 
> pool of public IP addresses. With IPv4 this would essentially 
> be a problem. Is your proposal specifically targeted at IPv6? 
> > 
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> > 
> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com 
> >> [mailto:hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com] Im Auftrag 
> >> von Alfredo Matos
> >> Gesendet: Montag, 21. August 2006 12:01
> >> An: Henderson, Thomas R
> >> Cc: Joao Girao; Rui Aguiar; hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> >> Betreff: Re: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
> >>
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> Sorry for the late reply but vacations got in the way.
> >>
> >> The NAT/FW draft argues along the lines of keeping the 
> following state
> >> on the middlebox:
> >>
> >> 	<destination IP Address, SPI and protocol>
> >>
> >> My understanding is that this should be the case (assuming 
> initiator
> >> behind a NAT, and responder outside), if the responder 
> addresses his
> >> packets to the middlebox address.
> >>
> >> But, on the privacy draft we do another kind of translation. 
> >> We maintain
> >>  at the RVA (our middlebox) the <source address, generated 
> >> address>. The
> >> generated address is routable to the middlebox. It seems to 
> >> us that this
> >> generates less state to keep track. The source address is 
> >> authenticated
> >> a priori upon registration with the middlebox (a Base 
> Exchange), and
> >> from there on the translation is straightforward. This has 
> >> the drawback
> >> of requiring a pool of global addresses for middlebox usage.
> >>
> >> As far as implementation of this is concerned, we already 
> >> have a working
> >> prototype, that translates the addresses (although the initial
> >> registration is manual), since this is the approach taken on the
> >> location privacy draft.
> >>
> >> Maybe this sort of solution could also appear in NAT/FW draft.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Alfredo Matos
> >>
> >>
> >> Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> >>> My recollection is that the discussion at the RG meeting in 
> >> March was to
> >>> move this document forward in the RG as a problem 
> >> statement, and that
> >>> documents such as SPINAT draft and Privacy Extensions draft should
> >>> consider whether they can adopt the below as the generic problem
> >>> statement for their work or whether more extensions are 
> >> needed to the
> >>> problem statement.
> >>>  
> >>> We had brief discussion at one point about adopting this as 
> >> a RG draft
> >>> but the comments from the floor were that it might be too 
> >> immature of a
> >>> subject area; that we don't have enough experience with
> >>> implementations.  Is that still the case?  Or can we point to some
> >>> available implementations that are within the scope of the 
> >> below draft?
> >>>  
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>>     
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----------
> >>>     *From:* Murugaraj [mailto:muru_lak2001 at yahoo.com]
> >>>     *Sent:* Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:24 AM
> >>>     *To:* hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> >>>     *Subject:* [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
> >>>
> >>>     Hi,
> >>>      
> >>>     The document "Problem Statement and Requirements for HIP-aware
> >>>     NATs/Fws " has been around for a long time.
> >>>      
> >>>     
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip
> >> -natfw-traversal-04.txt
> >>>      
> >>>     We got some comments from pekka last time and we updated it.
> >>>      
> >>>     I would like to get some comments and/or your opinion 
> >> to improve the
> >>>     document or to move forward.
> >>>      
> >>>     Thanks!!!
> >>>      
> >>>     ciao,
> >>>     Raj.
> >>>
> >>>     
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----------
> >>>     Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. 
> >> Try it free.
> >>>     
> >> <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http:/
> > /music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
> >>>     > 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----------
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> >>> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> >>> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> >> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> >> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg
> >>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg
> 

From: alfredo.matos at av.it.pt (Alfredo Matos)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:22:49 +0100
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Hannes,

I agree with you regarding the language of the draft. The problem
statement is fine. But reading through it, from beginning to end, i get
the feeling that it covers the solution space for potential middle box
usage. I guess that this was not an objective of the draft, rather
stating some examples, right ?

As for the second matter, yes it is in essence a NAT. Even though in the
protected area we make no assumptions on the technology, it could be
IPv4, IPv6, or HIT (or even LSI) based routing, for the core network we
always assumed to be working with IPv6. If we do not assume that, than
some modifications are in order, since the address pool could not be
used, and we would have to resort to something like the mentioned
tracking of <destination IP Address, SPI and protocol>, since it would
be a "pure" NAT.

BR,

Alfredo

Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
> Hi Alfredo, 
> 
> it is true that you could also store a variation of the state information mentioned in the draft. Maybe we should soften the language a bit to ensure that the problem statement draft does not yet describe potential solutions.
> 
> Btw, with your proposal you seem to use the middlebox as a NAT. As you mentioned there is the problem with maintaining a pool of public IP addresses. With IPv4 this would essentially be a problem. Is your proposal specifically targeted at IPv6? 
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com 
>> [mailto:hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com] Im Auftrag 
>> von Alfredo Matos
>> Gesendet: Montag, 21. August 2006 12:01
>> An: Henderson, Thomas R
>> Cc: Joao Girao; Rui Aguiar; hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
>> Betreff: Re: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply but vacations got in the way.
>>
>> The NAT/FW draft argues along the lines of keeping the following state
>> on the middlebox:
>>
>> 	<destination IP Address, SPI and protocol>
>>
>> My understanding is that this should be the case (assuming initiator
>> behind a NAT, and responder outside), if the responder addresses his
>> packets to the middlebox address.
>>
>> But, on the privacy draft we do another kind of translation. 
>> We maintain
>>  at the RVA (our middlebox) the <source address, generated 
>> address>. The
>> generated address is routable to the middlebox. It seems to 
>> us that this
>> generates less state to keep track. The source address is 
>> authenticated
>> a priori upon registration with the middlebox (a Base Exchange), and
>> from there on the translation is straightforward. This has 
>> the drawback
>> of requiring a pool of global addresses for middlebox usage.
>>
>> As far as implementation of this is concerned, we already 
>> have a working
>> prototype, that translates the addresses (although the initial
>> registration is manual), since this is the approach taken on the
>> location privacy draft.
>>
>> Maybe this sort of solution could also appear in NAT/FW draft.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Alfredo Matos
>>
>>
>> Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
>>> My recollection is that the discussion at the RG meeting in 
>> March was to
>>> move this document forward in the RG as a problem 
>> statement, and that
>>> documents such as SPINAT draft and Privacy Extensions draft should
>>> consider whether they can adopt the below as the generic problem
>>> statement for their work or whether more extensions are 
>> needed to the
>>> problem statement.
>>>  
>>> We had brief discussion at one point about adopting this as 
>> a RG draft
>>> but the comments from the floor were that it might be too 
>> immature of a
>>> subject area; that we don't have enough experience with
>>> implementations.  Is that still the case?  Or can we point to some
>>> available implementations that are within the scope of the 
>> below draft?
>>>  
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>     
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>>>     *From:* Murugaraj [mailto:muru_lak2001 at yahoo.com]
>>>     *Sent:* Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:24 AM
>>>     *To:* hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
>>>     *Subject:* [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>      
>>>     The document "Problem Statement and Requirements for HIP-aware
>>>     NATs/Fws " has been around for a long time.
>>>      
>>>     
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip
>> -natfw-traversal-04.txt
>>>      
>>>     We got some comments from pekka last time and we updated it.
>>>      
>>>     I would like to get some comments and/or your opinion 
>> to improve the
>>>     document or to move forward.
>>>      
>>>     Thanks!!!
>>>      
>>>     ciao,
>>>     Raj.
>>>
>>>     
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>>>     Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. 
>> Try it free.
>>>     
>> <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http:/
> /music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
>>>     > 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Hipsec-rg mailing list
>>> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
>>> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec-rg mailing list
>> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
>> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg
>>

From: hannes.tschofenig at siemens.com (Tschofenig, Hannes)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:02:00 +0200
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Alfredo, 

it is true that you could also store a variation of the state information mentioned in the draft. Maybe we should soften the language a bit to ensure that the problem statement draft does not yet describe potential solutions.

Btw, with your proposal you seem to use the middlebox as a NAT. As you mentioned there is the problem with maintaining a pool of public IP addresses. With IPv4 this would essentially be a problem. Is your proposal specifically targeted at IPv6? 

Ciao
Hannes

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com 
> [mailto:hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com] Im Auftrag 
> von Alfredo Matos
> Gesendet: Montag, 21. August 2006 12:01
> An: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: Joao Girao; Rui Aguiar; hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> Betreff: Re: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply but vacations got in the way.
> 
> The NAT/FW draft argues along the lines of keeping the following state
> on the middlebox:
> 
> 	<destination IP Address, SPI and protocol>
> 
> My understanding is that this should be the case (assuming initiator
> behind a NAT, and responder outside), if the responder addresses his
> packets to the middlebox address.
> 
> But, on the privacy draft we do another kind of translation. 
> We maintain
>  at the RVA (our middlebox) the <source address, generated 
> address>. The
> generated address is routable to the middlebox. It seems to 
> us that this
> generates less state to keep track. The source address is 
> authenticated
> a priori upon registration with the middlebox (a Base Exchange), and
> from there on the translation is straightforward. This has 
> the drawback
> of requiring a pool of global addresses for middlebox usage.
> 
> As far as implementation of this is concerned, we already 
> have a working
> prototype, that translates the addresses (although the initial
> registration is manual), since this is the approach taken on the
> location privacy draft.
> 
> Maybe this sort of solution could also appear in NAT/FW draft.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Alfredo Matos
> 
> 
> Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> > My recollection is that the discussion at the RG meeting in 
> March was to
> > move this document forward in the RG as a problem 
> statement, and that
> > documents such as SPINAT draft and Privacy Extensions draft should
> > consider whether they can adopt the below as the generic problem
> > statement for their work or whether more extensions are 
> needed to the
> > problem statement.
> >  
> > We had brief discussion at one point about adopting this as 
> a RG draft
> > but the comments from the floor were that it might be too 
> immature of a
> > subject area; that we don't have enough experience with
> > implementations.  Is that still the case?  Or can we point to some
> > available implementations that are within the scope of the 
> below draft?
> >  
> > Tom
> > 
> >     
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >     *From:* Murugaraj [mailto:muru_lak2001 at yahoo.com]
> >     *Sent:* Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:24 AM
> >     *To:* hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> >     *Subject:* [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
> > 
> >     Hi,
> >      
> >     The document "Problem Statement and Requirements for HIP-aware
> >     NATs/Fws " has been around for a long time.
> >      
> >     
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip
> -natfw-traversal-04.txt
> >      
> >     We got some comments from pekka last time and we updated it.
> >      
> >     I would like to get some comments and/or your opinion 
> to improve the
> >     document or to move forward.
> >      
> >     Thanks!!!
> >      
> >     ciao,
> >     Raj.
> > 
> >     
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >     Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. 
> Try it free.
> >     
> <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http:/
/music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
> >     > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Hipsec-rg mailing list
> > Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> > https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg
> 

From: alfredo.matos at av.it.pt (Alfredo Matos)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:01:29 +0100
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hello everyone,

Sorry for the late reply but vacations got in the way.

The NAT/FW draft argues along the lines of keeping the following state
on the middlebox:

	<destination IP Address, SPI and protocol>

My understanding is that this should be the case (assuming initiator
behind a NAT, and responder outside), if the responder addresses his
packets to the middlebox address.

But, on the privacy draft we do another kind of translation. We maintain
 at the RVA (our middlebox) the <source address, generated address>. The
generated address is routable to the middlebox. It seems to us that this
generates less state to keep track. The source address is authenticated
a priori upon registration with the middlebox (a Base Exchange), and
from there on the translation is straightforward. This has the drawback
of requiring a pool of global addresses for middlebox usage.

As far as implementation of this is concerned, we already have a working
prototype, that translates the addresses (although the initial
registration is manual), since this is the approach taken on the
location privacy draft.

Maybe this sort of solution could also appear in NAT/FW draft.

Best regards,

Alfredo Matos

Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> My recollection is that the discussion at the RG meeting in March was to
> move this document forward in the RG as a problem statement, and that
> documents such as SPINAT draft and Privacy Extensions draft should
> consider whether they can adopt the below as the generic problem
> statement for their work or whether more extensions are needed to the
> problem statement.
>  
> We had brief discussion at one point about adopting this as a RG draft
> but the comments from the floor were that it might be too immature of a
> subject area; that we don't have enough experience with
> implementations.  Is that still the case?  Or can we point to some
> available implementations that are within the scope of the below draft?
>  
> Tom
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Murugaraj [mailto:muru_lak2001 at yahoo.com]
>     *Sent:* Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:24 AM
>     *To:* hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
>     *Subject:* [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
> 
>     Hi,
>      
>     The document "Problem Statement and Requirements for HIP-aware
>     NATs/Fws " has been around for a long time.
>      
>     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-natfw-traversal-04.txt
>      
>     We got some comments from pekka last time and we updated it.
>      
>     I would like to get some comments and/or your opinion to improve the
>     document or to move forward.
>      
>     Thanks!!!
>      
>     ciao,
>     Raj.
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
>     <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
>     > 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg

From: gurtov at cs.helsinki.fi (Andrei Gurtov)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:31:47 +0300
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] [Fwd: [IRTF-Announce] HIPRG Report]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IRTF-Announce] HIPRG Report
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:50:22 -0700
From: Aaron Falk <falk at ISI.EDU>
To: IRTF Announcements <irtf-announce at irtf.org>

Host Identity Payload Research Group Report
August 2006

Co-chairs:  Andrei Gurtov (gurtov at cs.helsinki.fi)
            Tom Henderson (thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com)

The primary goal of the HIP Research Group (HIPRG) is to study the
proposed Host Identity Protocol and architecture and its potential
effects on the Internet.

The HIPRG continued its tradition of meeting on the Friday of IETF
week.  Detailed minutes and proceedings from the Montreal meeting can
be found at the IETF Proceedings site:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/proceeding_interim.cgi?
meeting_num=66>
There were 6 drafts discussed, updates on software status, and general
discussion.

The HIPRG is concentrating on two topics:

i) gaining and documenting experience with initial HIP deployments, and

ii) considering protocol extensions beyond those under development at
     the HIP WG

Presently, three open source implementations are currently being
maintained for HIP (tracking the evolving WG drafts).  The
implementations are maturing in terms of protocol options, operating
system support, and stability.  Recently, support for NAT traversal
has been added.

Some of the work items in HIPRG have moved to the HIP WG for final
discussions. Those include NAT traversal, native HIP API, and support
of legacy applications. The HIPRG has submitted a problem statement on
legacy middlebox traversal to the RFC editor queue
(draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-01.txt) following the new procedure for IRSG
publications.

Recently, the following protocol extensions are being discussed:

- --Opportunistic HIP using TCP option
   <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lindqvist-hip-
opportunistic-01.txt>

- --Piggybacking payload to HIP base exchange
   <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lindqvist-hip-tcp-
piggybacking-00.txt>

- --HIP Service discovery
   <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jokela-hip-service-
discovery-00.txt>

- --Simultaneous Multi-Access extension to the Host Identity Protocol
   <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pierrel-hip-sima-00.txt>

http://www.irtf.org/hip

- -
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://listserv.cybertrust.com/pipermail/hipsec-rg/attachments/20060818/bcf74f30/attachment.pgp 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
IRTF-Announce mailing list
IRTF-Announce at irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-announce

From: gurtov at cs.helsinki.fi (Andrei Gurtov)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:56:11 +0300
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi,

It would be useful if you could read a master's thesis below and think
whether there is anything to reflect in the draft from the practical
experience.
http://hipl.infrahip.net/papers/essi_dippa.pdf

Andrei

Murugaraj wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> The document "Problem Statement and Requirements for HIP-aware NATs/Fws
> " has been around for a long time.
>  
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-natfw-traversal-04.txt
>  
> We got some comments from pekka last time and we updated it.
>  
> I would like to get some comments and/or your opinion to improve the
> document or to move forward.
>  
> Thanks!!!
>  
> ciao,
> Raj.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
> <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg

- --
Andrei Gurtov  gurtov at hiit.fi  http://www.hiit.fi/andrei.gurtov
Adjunct Professor, TKK
PhD, Senior Research Scientist
Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT)
High Tech Center, Helsinki, Finland

From: hannes.tschofenig at siemens.com (Tschofenig, Hannes)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:00:37 +0200
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi Thomas, 
 
the problem statement document is written in a generic fashion
independent of solution details. I don't think we need implementation
experience to move it forward. 
 
Ciao
Hannes

________________________________

	Von: hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com
[mailto:hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com] Im Auftrag von
Henderson, Thomas R
	Gesendet: Montag, 7. August 2006 16:02
	An: Murugaraj; hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
	Betreff: Re: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....

	My recollection is that the discussion at the RG meeting in
March was to move this document forward in the RG as a problem
statement, and that documents such as SPINAT draft and Privacy
Extensions draft should consider whether they can adopt the below as the
generic problem statement for their work or whether more extensions are
needed to the problem statement.
	 
	We had brief discussion at one point about adopting this as a RG
draft but the comments from the floor were that it might be too immature
of a subject area; that we don't have enough experience with
implementations.  Is that still the case?  Or can we point to some
available implementations that are within the scope of the below draft?
	 
	Tom

________________________________

		From: Murugaraj [mailto:muru_lak2001 at yahoo.com] 
		Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:24 AM
		To: hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
		Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....

		Hi,
		 
		The document "Problem Statement and Requirements for
HIP-aware NATs/Fws " has been around for a long time. 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-natfw-tra
versal-04.txt
		 
		We got some comments from pekka last time and we updated
it.
		 
		I would like to get some comments and/or your opinion to
improve the document or to move forward.
		 
		Thanks!!!
		 
		ciao,
		Raj.

________________________________

		Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.
Try it free.
<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yah
oo.com/unlimited/>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://listserv.cybertrust.com/pipermail/hipsec-rg/attachments/20060807/13a07b7c/attachment.html 

From: thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com (Henderson, Thomas R)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 07:02:08 -0700
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

My recollection is that the discussion at the RG meeting in March was to
move this document forward in the RG as a problem statement, and that
documents such as SPINAT draft and Privacy Extensions draft should
consider whether they can adopt the below as the generic problem
statement for their work or whether more extensions are needed to the
problem statement.
 
We had brief discussion at one point about adopting this as a RG draft
but the comments from the floor were that it might be too immature of a
subject area; that we don't have enough experience with implementations.
Is that still the case?  Or can we point to some available
implementations that are within the scope of the below draft?
 
Tom

________________________________

	From: Murugaraj [mailto:muru_lak2001 at yahoo.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:24 AM
	To: hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
	Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....

	Hi,
	 
	The document "Problem Statement and Requirements for HIP-aware
NATs/Fws " has been around for a long time. 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-natfw-tra
versal-04.txt
	 
	We got some comments from pekka last time and we updated it.
	 
	I would like to get some comments and/or your opinion to improve
the document or to move forward.
	 
	Thanks!!!
	 
	ciao,
	Raj.

________________________________

	Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it
free.
<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yah
oo.com/unlimited/>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://listserv.cybertrust.com/pipermail/hipsec-rg/attachments/20060807/fadb00cc/attachment.html 

From: fu at cs.uni-goettingen.de (Xiaoming Fu)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:50:31 +0200
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] MobiArch'06 - submission deadline in 3 days!
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

===================================================================
MobiArch 2006 - Last Call for Papers - Paper submission by 7 August
===================================================================

(Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CfP)

Dear Colleagues,

A reminder that the paper submission deadline for the 1st Workshop on
Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (San Francisco, CA, USA,
December 1, 2006, in conjunction with IEEE GLOBECOM 2006) will be coming
up soon.

- EDAS paper submission deadline (firm):  **** August 7, 2006 ****
- URL: http://user.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/~mobiarch

Please consult the above URL for details regarding submissions.

On behalf of the MobiArch'06 team,
Xiaoming Fu, University of Goettingen <fu at cs.uni-goettingen.de>

From: muru_lak2001 at yahoo.com (Murugaraj)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 02:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] HIP aware NAT/FW draft status....
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi,
   
  The document "Problem Statement and Requirements for HIP-aware NATs/Fws " has been around for a long time. 
   
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-natfw-traversal-04.txt
   
  We got some comments from pekka last time and we updated it.
   
  I would like to get some comments and/or your opinion to improve the document or to move forward.
   
  Thanks!!!
   
  ciao,
  Raj.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://listserv.cybertrust.com/pipermail/hipsec-rg/attachments/20060803/b5196fb2/attachment.html 

From: thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com (Henderson, Thomas R)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 07:50:27 -0700
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] mic recordings
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Sebastien,
Since the HIPRG typically meets outside of normal IETF hours, there is usually no audio or Internet connection.  

For the last meeting, I believe that again there was no audio, but there was Internet and a jabber log of the meeting can be found here:
http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/hiprg/2006-07-14.html
(but I see that you already know about this since you are in the log itself)

Tom 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S?bastien Pierrel [mailto:sebastien.pierrel at nomadiclab.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:43 AM
> To: HIPRG
> Subject: [Hipsec-rg] mic recordings
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Are the mic recordings of the HIPRG meeting held in Montr?al 
> available 
> on the Internet? (I can't find them from the IETF pages).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> /Seb.
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg
> 

From: sebastien.pierrel at nomadiclab.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Pierrel?=)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:43:00 +0300
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] mic recordings
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi all,

Are the mic recordings of the HIPRG meeting held in Montr?al available 
on the Internet? (I can't find them from the IETF pages).

Thanks,
/Seb.