Re: Segmentation within HIP

Miika Komu <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.hipsec,gmane.ietf.hip
Organization Ericsson AB
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Samu,

On 03/26/2016 03:16 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>
>
> On 03/25/2016 03:49 PM, Derek Fawcus wrote:
>> Recently I've been working on middlebox s/w:  Firewalls and NAT.
>>
>> One thing this has brought home to me is just how unreliable
>> fragmentation is on the current Internet.  NAT will often simply
>> break it (such that they can not be reassembled) or just discard
>> them,  and firewalls are often set up to block them.
>>
>> As such,  almost every protocol now would seem to need protocol
>> level segmentation/fragmentation,  rather than depend up IP level
>> fragmentation.
>>
>> It struck me that it should be quite simple to extend HIP to
>> support such.
>>
>> 1) Add a Controls bit which advertises that the sender supports
>> segmentation. 2) Define a new parameter,  numbered 1 such that it
>> is first in the parameters,  and is critical. Within the parameter
>> have a seqno/identifier, offset and more segments / final segment
>> bit, possibly also a total size field.  Define some simple
>> reassembly rules,  similar to those for IP fragments, such that one
>> could reassemble a HIP packet larger than 2008 bytes if desired
>> (how big?). 3) Possibly also define a none critical parameter
>> within the non signed,  non MACed range which advertises the max
>> size packet the sender is willing to reassemble.  In fact I guess
>> this might remove the need to use a Controls bit,  since it would
>> imply the sender can reassemble.
>>
>> Then have a rule that once one party has seen the other party
>> advertise the segmentation capability within the current BEX
>> session, it is free to make use of segmentation towards that peer.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> DF
>
> Hi Derek, I don't remember the details, but in the early days of HIP,
> it was decided to avoid the burden of supporting fragmentation.  I
> guess I'd prefer to see some evidence that HIP messages are being
> fragmented in the wild before starting a work effort to add support.

do you recall how long a typical X.509 certificate can get?

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, 4 KB) - not displayed
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.