Subject: [Hipsec] Do we need to meet face-to-face in Minneapolis?

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:47:50 +0300

Hi,

does anybody feel the need for a face-to-face meeting in Minneapolis to 
advance our working group items?

Cheers,

Gonzalo
HIP co-chair

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

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:24:59 -0400

This past week I worked my way into thinking about LSIs through the back 
door so to speak. Originally, LSIs were to deal with HIPs need to impose 
itself between an IPv4 app and the IPv4 Internet. Well and good, as I 
have been focusing totally on an IPv6 Internet.

But I have been worn down by the lack of IPv6 applications for Linux 
Things are just not working, and I don't believe it is becuase I am 
using Centos. I started thinking about IPv4 apps on an IPv6 Internet via 
HIP and LSIs. Probably many of you that have been working with HIP code 
all these years are thinking, 'oh course, simple'.

Well it is not documented. LSIs in general are only mentioned in 4423 
and very briefly. 5201 does not say anything about the LSI. It is 
covered somewhat in draft-ietf-hip-applications-04.txt, but not as I am 
thinking about it these days.

Has anyone here have IPv4 apps working over an IPv6 only network via HIP 
and LSIs? This could a very 'compelling story' for HIP, as everything I 
have read on IPv6 migration requires dual networks until all apps have 
been converted for IPv6.

v6tun from KAME is another approach to this problem, but I can't find it 
for Linux, and though I was given a Makefile supposedly for Linux for 
v6tun, it is not working for my on Centos.

---

From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:37:45 -0700

> Has anyone here have IPv4 apps working over an IPv6 only 
> network via HIP and LSIs?

With OpenHIP we have tried running IPv4 apps over an IPv6-only HIP
association, and vice-versa (IPv6 / IPv4 only), and that works. I bet
others have similar experiences with the other implementations...

-Jeff

---

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:44:49 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Moskowitz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:25 AM
> To: HIP
> Subject: [Hipsec] Thinking about LSIs
> 

Bob,

As Jeff mentioned, we have run IPv4-based apps over v6 networks and
vice-versa, but have not worked on inter-family handoff of an active
association, as was demoed by NomadicLab in a past IETF.  In fact, most
of our experience and priority has been on IPv4 apps/LSIs running over
IPv4 networks, because that is what we most frequently have to deal
with.  Likewise, our HIP experience colors my perspective that ICE
support will turn out to be more useful than Teredo support, at least in
the near term.

However, we haven't found that lack of documentation has been a barrier
to using LSIs, since they are internal to the host.  I tried to capture
all of the issues that we and others have encountered in the "HIP for
Legacy Applications" informational document.  What are you thinking
should be documented better?  A "How to use HIP for IPv6 transition"
document?

Tom

---

From: Jan Mikael Melen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:26:15 +0300

Hi Robert,

Just to confirm also others. LSIs are working fine and we have even done 
IPv4-IPv6 inter-family handovers using LSIs and HITs. The really 
problematic applications are SIP, ftp and ping. For the first two the 
problem is that they might be sending the IP (LSI) over the network and 
on ping the problem is that we have two protocols ICMP and ICMP6.

   Jan

---

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:43:23 -0700

> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:48 AM
> To: HIP
> Subject: [Hipsec] Do we need to meet face-to-face in Minneapolis?
> 
> Hi,
> 

Gonzalo,
I think that the NAT traversal work will need some meeting time (perhaps
outside of the WG?) to meet the charter milestone set for Dec 2008 WGLC.
There are five other charter items scheduled to WGLC by next April, and
some of them are far from complete.  A WG meeting might move some of
that work forward.  

Tom

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:53:35 -0400

> advance our working group items?

I think it is time to review the issues raised by the IESG and others 
and chart a course to move HIP to standards track.

This is critical if other technologies, like P2PSIP, are going to 
consider HIP as more than an exercise.

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:46:38 +0300

Hi,

yes, I agree this is important. However, many of the key contributors to 
the working group will not be in Minneapolis. That is why I am not sure 
if a face-to-face session is the best solution. I have received a number 
of emails stating that discussions on the list and conference calls 
would be more effective at this point.

In any case, if you have a strong opinion on this and think meeting 
face-to-face would help somehow, I can request a one-hour session in 
Minneapolis. I am just trying to use people's time in the best possible 
way and, according to my experience, discussions in the HIP WG do not 
usually happen in the face-to-face meeting.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> does anybody feel the need for a face-to-face meeting in Minneapolis 
>> to advance our working group items?
> 
>