Re: Comment on VIA_RVS parameter - 5204 & 06 -bis

On 09/27/2016 04:58 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/27/2016 03:56 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/26/2016 09:08 AM, Miika Komu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 09/16/2016 02:45 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/16/2016 06:57 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 5206-bis specifies how to user RVS for the 'double-jump' mobility
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.2.3 1) says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The mobile host sending an UPDATE to the peer, and not receiving
>>>>>> an ACK, MAY resend the UPDATE to a rendezvous server (RVS) of the
>>>>>> peer, if such a server is known.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it DOES know there is an RVS IF the I1 had FROM and RVS_HMAC
>>>>>> parameters and it had created a VIA_RVS parameter to send in the R1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but the responder may not know the initiator's RVS even if the
>>>>> the responder's RVS was used, and it also may be the case that 
>>>>> neither
>>>>> host's RVS was involved in the session setup.
>>>>
>>>> I see now.  As currently speced, R has no way of learning I's RVS. The
>>>> 'easy' way to fix this is for I to include a VIA_RVS in the I2 packet
>>>> for mobility support.
>>>>
>>>> "If you every want to get back to me, I can always be reached at this
>>>> number".
>>>
>>> do you actually need the initiator's RVS for double jump? I think the
>>> responder's RVS is enough.
>>
>> Then the Initiator's UPDATE must be successful before the Responder can
>> perform its UPDATE successfully.  This way they can operate in parallel.
>
> I see, you really want to avoid packets being dropped.

Draft on Fast Mobility schedule for publication on Wednesday. ;)

Just about finished with pre-draft reviews.


>
>>>>>> This VIA_RVS provides the knowledge and locator of the peer's RVS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact an aggressive mobility UPDATE would be sent 
>>>>>> simultaneously to
>>>>>> the host and its RVS.  If the host had not moved itself, it gets 
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> and drops the one from the RVS.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that Baris Boyvat on the InfraHIP project was looking a
>>>>> while back at such an approach to fast mobility; it was called
>>>>> 'shotgun' approach to mobility and multihoming (try all candidates
>>>>> simultaneously), if I remember correctly.
>>>
>>> Yes, the idea was to send I1 (or UPDATE) through all the available
>>> address pairs, but I think the idea is now achieved in a more
>>> controlled way in draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-13
>>
>> I will look at that.  But what if there is no NATs to traverse? That
>> there are 2+ interfaces, all native IPv6?
>>
>> But I will review nat-traversal.
>
> Basically the nat-traversal draft is about connectivity checks (that 
> traverse NATs), nothing much IPv4 specific there. Feedback is still 
> welcome.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec