IRTF HIP Research Group T. Henderson
Internet-Draft The Boeing Company
Expires: April 13, 2005 A. Gurtov
HIIT
October 13, 2004
HIP Experiment Report
draft-irtf-hip-experiment-00
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This is the initial draft of the HIP-RG experiment report.
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HIP Experiment Report October 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 What is HIP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. HIP architectural overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Basic HIP architectural elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 Separating identifier from locator . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2 Cryptographic name space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3 HIP handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.4 Mobility management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.5 Initial rendezvous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.6 Host multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.7 DNS resource record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Advanced HIP concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2 Overlay routing and rendezvous . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3 Lighterweight HIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.4 Common Endpoint Locator Pools (CELP) . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.5 NAT traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.6 Managing identities and privacy . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.7 BLIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.8 native API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.9 HIP cookie mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. HIP architectural/deployment impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. HIP experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HIP Experiment Report October 2004
1. Introduction
This document summarizes the work and experiences of the Host
Identity Protocol IRTF Research Group (HIP-RG). The HIP-RG was
chartered to explore the possible benefits and consequences of
deploying the Host Identity Protocol architecture [1] in the
Internet.
1.1 What is HIP?
The Host Identity Protocol introduces a new name space, the "host
identity" name space, to the Internet architecture. The express
purpose of this new name space is to allow for the decoupling of
identifiers (host identities) and locators (IP addresses) in the
architecture. The authors and technical contributors to HIP have
assumed that HIP will allow for alternative solutions for several of
the Internet's challenging technical problems. Although there have
been many architectural proposals to decouple identifiers and
locators over the past 20 years, HIP is currently the most actively
developed proposal in this area. A number of experimental draft
specifications are in work in the IETF's HIP Working Group, including
the HIP base protocol [2], among other drafts dealing with mobility
management, DNS resource records, and HIP rendezvous servers.
Section 2 below provides an overview of HIP.
1.2 Scope
The research group is tasked with producing an "experiment report"
documenting the collective experiences and lessons learned from other
studies, related experimentation, and designs completed by the
research group. The question of whether the basic identifier/locator
split assumption is valid falls beyond the scope of this research
group. When indicated by its studies, the HIP RG can suggest
extensions and modifications to the protocol and architecture. It is
also in scope for the RG to study, in a wider sense, the consequences
and effects that wide-scale adoption of any type of separation of the
identifier and locator roles of IP addresses is likely to have.
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HIP Experiment Report October 2004
2. HIP architectural overview
Note: The purpose of this section is to summarize basic features
(identifier name space, handshake, mob. mgmt., multi-homing, DNS RR,
and initial rendezvous) and then introduce more advanced proposals
(HIT resolution, advanced rendezvous/overlay architectures,
lighterweight HIP, ...). For example, some infrastructure impacts
might be overcome by a clever idea that someone proposed but that is
not yet included in the HIP-WG scope.
2.1 Basic HIP architectural elements
2.1.1 Separating identifier from locator
Reference Saltzer, Chiappa, others... Just briefly touch on the
implications of this (less security if not secured somehow, need for
new name service)
2.1.2 Cryptographic name space
Introduce motivation for this part of HIP
2.1.3 HIP handshake
Reference SIGMA and client puzzles papers for more information
2.1.4 Mobility management
briefly describe how this works, and provide reference
2.1.5 Initial rendezvous
briefly describe how this works, and provide reference
2.1.6 Host multihoming
briefly describe how this works, and provide reference
2.1.7 DNS resource record
briefly describe how this works, and provide reference
2.2 Advanced HIP concepts
2.2.1 Referrals
a.k.a. HIT resolution
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HIP Experiment Report October 2004
2.2.2 Overlay routing and rendezvous
Discuss the work on i3, Lars's more advanced draft, ...
2.2.3 Lighterweight HIP
Discuss and reference the multi6 proposal.
2.2.4 Common Endpoint Locator Pools (CELP)
Introduce the problem, and reference Crocker/Doria.
2.2.5 NAT traversal
Dealing with legacy middleboxes.
2.2.6 Managing identities and privacy
e.g. location privacy
2.2.7 BLIND
keeping complete identity protection
2.2.8 native API
reference Mika's work
2.2.9 HIP cookie mechanism
more egalitarian cookie functions?
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HIP Experiment Report October 2004
3. HIP architectural/deployment impact
This section describes positive and negative implications of
deploying HIP. Where possible, we provide experimental evidence to
support claims-- otherwise, identify them as conjecture.
Initial list of issues to cover here:
1. Impact on host stack implementations
2. application impact and API
3. impact on DNS
4. managing and securing host identities
5. access control lists
6. firewall/NAT issues
7. HIT resolution infrastructure
8. location privacy issues
9. advanced rendezvous/overlay architectures
10. lighterweight HIP
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HIP Experiment Report October 2004
4. HIP experience
This section describes any real-world HIP experience. Include also
recommendations to change HIP?
HIP experience:
1. DoS protection on HIP handshake
2. managing locator sets
3. NAT traversal experience
4. rendezvous server experience
5. application experience
6. implementation experience
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HIP Experiment Report October 2004
5. Acknowledgments
6 References
[1] Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol Architecture",
draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-06 (work in progress), June 2004.
[2] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P. and T. Henderson, "Host
Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-00 (work in progress),
June 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Tom Henderson
The Boeing Company
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA
USA
EMail: thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com
Andrei Gurtov
HIIT
Helsinki Institute for Information Technology
Advanced Research Unit (ARU)
P.O. Box 9800
Helsinki FIN-02015-HUT
FINLAND
Phone: +358 9 451 1
EMail: gurtov@cs.helsinki.fi
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HIP Experiment Report October 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Henderson & Gurtov Expires April 13, 2005 [Page 9]
