draft-ietf-hip-bone-04.txt   draft-ietf-hip-bone-05.txt 
HIP Working Group G. Camarillo HIP Working Group G. Camarillo
Internet-Draft P. Nikander Internet-Draft P. Nikander
Intended status: Experimental J. Hautakorpi Intended status: Experimental J. Hautakorpi
Expires: July 30, 2010 A. Keranen Expires: September 9, 2010 A. Keranen
Ericsson Ericsson
A. Johnston A. Johnston
Avaya Avaya
January 26, 2010 March 8, 2010
HIP BONE: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Based Overlay Networking HIP BONE: Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Based Overlay Networking
Environment Environment
draft-ietf-hip-bone-04.txt draft-ietf-hip-bone-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a framework to build HIP (Host Identity This document specifies a framework to build HIP (Host Identity
Protocol)-based overlay networks. This framework uses HIP to perform Protocol)-based overlay networks. This framework uses HIP to perform
connection management. Other functions, such as data storage and connection management. Other functions, such as data storage and
retrieval or overlay maintenance, are implemented using protocols retrieval or overlay maintenance, are implemented using protocols
other than HIP. These protocols are loosely referred to as peer other than HIP. These protocols are loosely referred to as peer
protocols. protocols.
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 30, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License. described in the BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Background on HIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Background on HIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. ID/locator Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. ID/locator Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Identifier Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.1. Identifier Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. HIP Base Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.2. HIP Base Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Locator Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.3. Locator Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1. DoS Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3.1. DoS Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.2. Identifier Assignment and Authentication . . . . . . . 7 3.3.2. Identifier Assignment and Authentication . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. Connection Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.3. Connection Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. HIP Deployability and Legacy Applications . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. HIP Deployability and Legacy Applications . . . . . . . . 8
4. The HIP BONE Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Framework Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Peer ID Assignment and Bootstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. The HIP BONE Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Node ID Assignment and Bootstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Lightweight Message Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. HIP BONE Instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3. Lightweight Message Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Advantages of Using HIP BONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.4. HIP BONE Instantiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Overlay HIP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Overlay HIP Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Overlay Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Overlay Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Overlay TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2. Overlay TTL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC5201] defines a new name space The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC5201] defines a new name space
between the network and transport layers. HIP provides upper layers between the network and transport layers. HIP provides upper layers
with mobility, multihoming, NAT (Network Address Translation) with mobility, multihoming, NAT (Network Address Translation)
traversal, and security functionality. HIP implements the so called traversal, and security functionality. HIP implements the so called
identifier/locator (ID/locator) split, which implies that IP identifier/locator (ID/locator) split, which implies that IP
addresses are only used as locators, not as host identifiers. This addresses are only used as locators, not as host identifiers. This
split makes HIP a suitable protocol to build overlay networks that split makes HIP a suitable protocol to build overlay networks that
implement identifier-based overlay routing over IP networks, which in implement identifier-based overlay routing over IP networks, which in
turn implement locator-based routing. turn implement locator-based routing.
Using HIP BONE, as opposed to a peer protocol, to perform connection
management in an overlay has a set of advantages. HIP BONE can be
used by any peer protocol. This keeps each peer protocol from
defining primitives needed for connection management (e.g.,
primitives to establish connections and to tunnel messages through
the overlay) and NAT traversal. Having this functionality at a lower
layer allows multiple upper-layer protocols to take advantage of it.
Additionally, having a solution that integrates mobility and
multihoming is useful in many scenarios. Peer protocols do not
typically specify mobility and multihoming solutions. Combining a
peer protocol including NAT traversal with a separate mobility
mechanism and a separate multihoming mechanism can easily lead to
unexpected (and unpleasant) interactions.
The remainder of this document is organized as follows. Section 3 The remainder of this document is organized as follows. Section 3
provides background information on HIP. Section 4 describes the HIP provides background information on HIP. Section 4 gives an overview
BONE (HIP-Based Overlay Networking Environment) framework. Section 5 of the HIP BONE (HIP-Based Overlay Networking Environment) framework
discusses some of the advantages derived from using the HIP BONE and architecture and Section 5 describes the framework in more
framework. Section 6 introduces new HIP parameters for overlay detail. Finally, before the customary sections, Section 6 introduces
usage. Finally, before the customary sections, Section 7 attempts to new HIP parameters for overlay usage.
put the presented proposal into a larger architectural context.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The following terms are used in context of HIP BONEs:
Overlay network: A network built on top of another network. In case
of HIP BONEs, the underlying network is an IP network and the
overlay can be, e.g., a peer-to-peer (P2P) network.
Peer protocol: A protocol used by nodes in an overlay network for
performing, e.g., data storage and retrieval or overlay
maintenance. HIP is used for conveying the peer protocol messages
between the nodes in the overlay network.
HIP BONE instance: A HIP-based overlay network that uses a
particular peer protocol and is based on the framework presented
in this document.
Node ID: A value that uniquely identifies a node in an overlay
network. The value is not usually human-friendly, but for example
a hash of a public key.
Valid locator: A Locator (as defined in [RFC5206]; usually an IP
address or an address and a port number) that a host is known to
be reachable at, for example, because there is an active HIP
association with the host.
3. Background on HIP 3. Background on HIP
This section provides background on HIP. Given the tutorial nature This section provides background on HIP. Given the tutorial nature
of this section, readers that are familiar with what HIP provides and of this section, readers that are familiar with what HIP provides and
how HIP works may want to skip it. All descriptions contain how HIP works may want to skip it. All descriptions contain
references to the relevant HIP specifications where readers can find references to the relevant HIP specifications where readers can find
detailed explanations on the different topics discussed in this detailed explanations on the different topics discussed in this
section. section.
3.1. ID/locator Split 3.1. ID/locator Split
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 16
| I1 | | I1 |
| -------------------------->| | -------------------------->|
| R1 | | R1 |
| <--------------------------| | <--------------------------|
| I2 | | I2 |
| -------------------------->| | -------------------------->|
| R2 | | R2 |
| <--------------------------| | <--------------------------|
Figure 2: HIP base exchange Figure 2: HIP Base Exchange
Of course, the initiator needs the responder's locator (or locators) Of course, the initiator needs the responder's locator (or locators)
in order to send its I1 packet. The initiator can obtain locators in order to send its I1 packet. The initiator can obtain locators
for the responder in multiple ways. For example, according to the for the responder in multiple ways. For example, according to the
current HIP specifications the initiator can get the locators current HIP specifications the initiator can get the locators
directly from the DNS [RFC5205] or indirectly by sending packets directly from the DNS [RFC5205] or indirectly by sending packets
through a HIP rendezvous server [RFC5204]. However, as an through a HIP rendezvous server [RFC5204]. However, as an
architecture HIP is open ended, and allows the locators to be architecture HIP is open ended, and allows the locators to be
obtained by any means (e.g., from packets traversing an overlay obtained by any means (e.g., from packets traversing an overlay
network or as part of the candidate address collection process in a network or as part of the candidate address collection process in a
skipping to change at page 7, line 41 skipping to change at page 8, line 26
given a fixed public key K1, finding a different public key K2 such given a fixed public key K1, finding a different public key K2 such
that hash(K1) = hash(K2) is computationally very hard. Optimally, a that hash(K1) = hash(K2) is computationally very hard. Optimally, a
preimage attack on the 100-bit hash function used in ORCHIDs will preimage attack on the 100-bit hash function used in ORCHIDs will
take an order of 2^100 operations to be successful, and can be take an order of 2^100 operations to be successful, and can be
expected to take in the average 2^99 operations. Given that each expected to take in the average 2^99 operations. Given that each
operation requires the attacker to generate a new key pair, the operation requires the attacker to generate a new key pair, the
attack is completely impractical (see [RFC4843]). attack is completely impractical (see [RFC4843]).
HIP nodes using HITs as ORCHIDs do not typically use certificates HIP nodes using HITs as ORCHIDs do not typically use certificates
during their base exchanges. Instead, the use a leap-of-faith during their base exchanges. Instead, the use a leap-of-faith
mechanism, similar to SSH, whereby a node authenticates somehow mechanism, similar to the Secure Shell (SSH) protocol [RFC4251],
remote nodes the first time they connect it and, then, remembers whereby a node authenticates somehow remote nodes the first time they
their public keys. While user-assisted leap-of-faith (such as in connect it and, then, remembers their public keys. While user-
SSH) can be used to facilitate a human-operated offline path (such as assisted leap-of-faith (such as in SSH) can be used to facilitate a
a telephone call), automated leap-of-faith can be combined with a human-operated offline path (such as a telephone call), automated
reputation management system to create an incentive to behave. leap-of-faith can be combined with a reputation management system to
However, such considerations go well beyond the current HIP create an incentive to behave. However, such considerations go well
architecture and even beyond this proposal. For the purposes of the beyond the current HIP architecture and even beyond this proposal.
present document, we merely want to point out that architecturally For the purposes of the present document, we merely want to point out
HIP supports both self-generated opportunistic identifiers and that architecturally HIP supports both self-generated opportunistic
administratively assigned ones. identifiers and administratively assigned ones.
3.3.3. Connection Security 3.3.3. Connection Security
Once two nodes complete a base exchange between them, the traffic Once two nodes complete a base exchange between them, the traffic
they exchange is encrypted and integrity protected. The security they exchange is encrypted and integrity protected. The security
mechanism used to protect the traffic is IPsec ESP [RFC5202]. mechanism used to protect the traffic is IPsec Encapsulating Security
However, there is ongoing work to specify how to use different Payload (ESP) [RFC5202]. However, there is ongoing work to specify
protection mechanisms. how to use different protection mechanisms.
3.4. HIP Deployability and Legacy Applications 3.4. HIP Deployability and Legacy Applications
As discussed earlier, HIP defines a native socket API As discussed earlier, HIP defines a native socket API
[I-D.ietf-hip-native-api] that applications can use to establish and [I-D.ietf-hip-native-api] that applications can use to establish and
manage connections. New applications can implement this API to get manage connections. New applications can implement this API to get
full advantage of HIP. However, in most cases, legacy (i.e., non-HIP full advantage of HIP. However, in most cases, legacy (i.e., non-HIP
aware) applications [RFC5338] can use HIP through the traditional aware) applications [RFC5338] can use HIP through the traditional
IPv4 and IPv6 socket APIs. IPv4 and IPv6 socket APIs.
skipping to change at page 8, line 36 skipping to change at page 9, line 21
the remote host's IP address internally at the HIP module. Since the the remote host's IP address internally at the HIP module. Since the
ORCHID looks like an IPv6 address, the legacy application treats it ORCHID looks like an IPv6 address, the legacy application treats it
as such. It opens a connection (e.g., TCP) using the traditional as such. It opens a connection (e.g., TCP) using the traditional
IPv6 socket API. The HIP module running in the same host as the IPv6 socket API. The HIP module running in the same host as the
legacy application intercepts this call somehow (e.g., using an legacy application intercepts this call somehow (e.g., using an
interception library or setting up the host's routing tables so that interception library or setting up the host's routing tables so that
the HIP module receives the traffic) and runs HIP (on behalf of the the HIP module receives the traffic) and runs HIP (on behalf of the
legacy application) towards the IP address corresponding to the legacy application) towards the IP address corresponding to the
ORCHID. This mechanism works well in almost all cases. However, ORCHID. This mechanism works well in almost all cases. However,
applications involving referrals (i.e., passing of IPv6 addresses applications involving referrals (i.e., passing of IPv6 addresses
between applications) present issues, to be discussed in Section 4 between applications) present issues, to be discussed in Section 5
below. Additionally, management applications that care about the below. Additionally, management applications that care about the
exact IP address format may not work well with such straightforward exact IP address format may not work well with such straightforward
approach. approach.
In order to make HIP work through the traditional IPv4 socket API, In order to make HIP work through the traditional IPv4 socket API,
the HIP module passes an LSI (Local Scope Identifier), instead of a the HIP module passes an LSI (Local Scope Identifier), instead of a
regular IPv4 address, to the legacy IPv4 application. The LSI looks regular IPv4 address, to the legacy IPv4 application. The LSI looks
like an IPv4 address, but is locally bound to an ORCHID. That is, like an IPv4 address, but is locally bound to an ORCHID. That is,
when the legacy application uses the LSI in a socket call, the HIP when the legacy application uses the LSI in a socket call, the HIP
module intercepts it and replaces the LSI with its corresponding module intercepts it and replaces the LSI with its corresponding
ORCHID. Therefore, LSIs always have local scope. They do not have ORCHID. Therefore, LSIs always have local scope. They do not have
any meaning outside the host running the application. The ORCHID is any meaning outside the host running the application. The ORCHID is
used on the wire; not the LSI. In the referral case, if it is not used on the wire; not the LSI. In the referral case, if it is not
possible to rewrite the application level packets to use ORCHIDs possible to rewrite the application level packets to use ORCHIDs
instead of LSIs, it may be hard to make IPv4 referrals work in instead of LSIs, it may be hard to make IPv4 referrals work in
Internet-wide settings. IPv4 LSIs have been successfully used in Internet-wide settings. IPv4 LSIs have been successfully used in
existing HIP deployments within a single corporate network. existing HIP deployments within a single corporate network.
4. The HIP BONE Framework 4. Framework Overview
An overlay typically requires three types of operations: The HIP BONE framework combines HIP with different peer protocols to
provide robust and secure overlay network solutions.
Many overlays typically require three types of operations:
o overlay maintenance. o overlay maintenance.
o data storage and retrieval. o data storage and retrieval.
o connection management. o connection management.
Overlay maintenance operations deal with nodes joining and leaving Overlay maintenance operations deal with nodes joining and leaving
the overlay and with the maintenance of the overlay's routing tables. the overlay and with the maintenance of the overlay's routing tables.
Data storage and retrieval operations deal with nodes storing, Data storage and retrieval operations deal with nodes storing,
retrieving, and removing information in or from the overlay. retrieving, and removing information in or from the overlay.
Connection management operations deal with the establishment of Connection management operations deal with the establishment of
connections and the exchange of lightweight messages among the nodes connections and the exchange of lightweight messages among the nodes
of the overlay, potentially in the presence of NATs. of the overlay, potentially in the presence of NATs.
skipping to change at page 9, line 27 skipping to change at page 10, line 20
retrieving, and removing information in or from the overlay. retrieving, and removing information in or from the overlay.
Connection management operations deal with the establishment of Connection management operations deal with the establishment of
connections and the exchange of lightweight messages among the nodes connections and the exchange of lightweight messages among the nodes
of the overlay, potentially in the presence of NATs. of the overlay, potentially in the presence of NATs.
The HIP BONE framework uses HIP to perform connection management. The HIP BONE framework uses HIP to perform connection management.
Data storage and retrieval and overlay maintenance are to be Data storage and retrieval and overlay maintenance are to be
implemented using protocols other than HIP. For lack of a better implemented using protocols other than HIP. For lack of a better
name, these protocols are referred to as peer protocols. name, these protocols are referred to as peer protocols.
One way to depict the relationship between the peer protocol and HIP
modules is shown in Figure 3. The peer protocol module implements
the overlay construction and maintenance features, and possibly
storage (if the particular protocol supports such a feature). The
HIP module consults the peer protocol's overlay topology part for
making routing decisions and the peer protocol uses HIP for
connection management and sending peer protocol messages to other
hosts. The HIP BONE API that applications use is a combination of
the HIP Native API and traditional socket API (as shown in Figure 1)
with any additional API a particular instance implementation
provides.
Application
-------------------------------- HIP BONE API
+---+ +--------------------+
| | | Peer Protocol |
| | +--------+ +---------+
| |<->|Topology| |(Storage)|
| | +---------+----------+
| | ^
| | v
| +------------------------+
| HIP |
+----------------------------+
Figure 3: HIP with Peer Protocol
Architecturally, HIP can be considered to create a new thin "waist"
layer on top of the IPv4 and IPv6 networks; see Figure 4. The HIP
layer itself consists of the HIP signaling protocol and one or more
data transport protocols; see Figure 5. The HIP signaling packets
and the data transport packets can take different routes. In the HIP
BONE, the HIP signaling packets are typically first routed through
the overlay and then directly (if possible), while the data transport
packets are typically routed only directly between the end points.
+--------------------------------------+
| Transport (using HITs or LSIs) |
+--------------------------------------+
| HIP |
+------------------+-------------------+
| IPv4 | IPv6 |
+------------------+-------------------+
Figure 4: HIP as a Thin Waist
+------------------+-------------------+
| HIP signaling | data transports |
+------------------+-------------------+
Figure 5: HIP Layer Structure
In HIP BONE, the peer protocol creates a new signaling layer on top
of HIP. It is used to set up forwarding paths for HIP signaling
messages. This is a similar relationship that an IP routing
protocol, such as OSPF, has to the IP protocol itself. In the HIP
BONE case, the peer protocol plays a role similar to OSPF, and HIP
plays a role similar to IP. The ORCHIDs (or, in general, Node IDs if
the ORCHID prefix is not used) are used for forwarding HIP packets
according to the information in the routing tables. The peer
protocols are used to exchange routing information based on Node IDs
and to construct the routing tables.
Architecturally, routing tables are located between the peer protocol
and HIP, as shown in Figure 6. The peer protocol constructs the
routing table and keeps it updated. The HIP layer accesses the
routing table in order to make routing decisions. The bootstrap of a
HIP BONE overlay does not create circular dependencies between the
peer protocol (which needs to use HIP to establish connections with
other nodes) and HIP (which needs the peer protocol to know how to
route messages to other nodes) for the same reasons as the bootstrap
of an IP network does not create circular dependencies between OSPF
and IP. The first connections established by the peer protocol are
with nodes whose locators are known. HIP establishes those
connections as any connection between two HIP nodes where no overlays
are present. That is, there is no need for the overlay to provide a
rendezvous service for those connections.
+--------------------------------------+
| Peer protocol |
+--------------------------------------+
| Routing table |
+--------------------------------------+
| HIP |
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Routing Tables
It is possible that different overlays use different routing table
formats. For example, the structure of the routing tables of two
overlays based on different DHTs (Distributed Hash Tables) may be
very different. In order to make routing decisions, the HIP layer
needs to convert the routing table generated by the peer protocol
into a forwarding table that allows the HIP layer select a next-hop
for any packet being routed.
In HIP BONE, the HIP usage of public keys and deriving ORCHIDs
through a hash function can be utilized at the peer protocol side to
better secure routing table maintenance and to protect against
chosen-peer-ID attacks.
The HIP BONE provides quite a lot of flexibility with regards to how
to arrange the different protocols in detail. Figure 7 shows one
potential stack structure.
+-----------------------+--------------+
| peer protocols | media |
+------------------+----+--------------+
| HIP signaling | data transport |
| |
+------------------+-------------------+
| NAT | non-NAT | |
| | |
| IPv4 | IPv6 |
+------------------+-------------------+
Figure 7: Example HIP BONE Stack Structure
5. The HIP BONE Framework
HIP BONE is a generic framework that allows the use of different peer HIP BONE is a generic framework that allows the use of different peer
protocols. A particular HIP BONE instance uses a particular peer protocols. A particular HIP BONE instance uses a particular peer
protocol. The details on how to implement a HIP BONE using a given protocol. The details on how to implement a HIP BONE using a given
peer protocol need to be specified in a, so called, HIP BONE instance peer protocol need to be specified in a, so called, HIP BONE instance
specification. Section 4.4 discusses what details need to be specification. Section 5.4 discusses what details need to be
specified by HIP BONE instance specifications. For example, the HIP specified by HIP BONE instance specifications. For example, the HIP
BONE instance specification for RELOAD [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] is BONE instance specification for RELOAD [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] is
specified in [I-D.ietf-hip-reload-instance]. specified in [I-D.ietf-hip-reload-instance].
4.1. Peer ID Assignment and Bootstrap 5.1. Node ID Assignment and Bootstrap
Nodes in an overlay are primarily identified by their Peer IDs. Nodes in an overlay are primarily identified by their Node IDs.
Overlays typically have an enrollment server that can generate Peer Overlays typically have an enrollment server that can generate Node
IDs, or at least some part of the Peer ID, and sign certificates. A IDs, or at least some part of the Node ID, and sign certificates. A
certificate generated by an enrollment server authorizes a particular certificate generated by an enrollment server authorizes a particular
user to use a particular Peer ID in a particular overlay. The way user to use a particular Node ID in a particular overlay. The way
users and overlays are identified are defined by the peer protocol users and overlays are identified are defined by the peer protocol
and HIP BONE instance specification. and HIP BONE instance specification.
The enrollment server of an overlay that were to use HITs derived The enrollment server of an overlay that were to use HITs derived
from public keys as Peer IDs could just authorize users to use the from public keys as Node IDs could just authorize users to use the
public keys and HITs associated to their nodes. Such a Peer ID has public keys and HITs associated to their nodes. Such a Node ID has
the same self-certifying property as HITs and the Peer ID can also be the same self-certifying property as HITs and the Node ID can also be
used in the HIP and legacy APIs as an ORCHID. This works well as used in the HIP and legacy APIs as an ORCHID. This works well as
long as the enrollment server is the one generating the public/ long as the enrollment server is the one generating the public/
private key pairs for all those nodes. If the enrollment server private key pairs for all those nodes. If the enrollment server
authorizes users to use HITs that are generated directly by the nodes authorizes users to use HITs that are generated directly by the nodes
themselves, the system is open to a type of chosen-peer-ID attack. themselves, the system is open to a type of chosen-peer-ID attack.
If the overlay network or peer protocol has more specific If the overlay network or peer protocol has more specific
requirements for the Peer ID value that prevent using HITs derived requirements for the Node ID value that prevent using HITs derived
from public keys, each host will need a certificate (e.g., in their from public keys, each host will need a certificate (e.g., in their
HIP base exchanges) provided by the enrollment server to prove that HIP base exchanges) provided by the enrollment server to prove that
they are authorized to use a particular identifier in the overlay. they are authorized to use a particular identifier in the overlay.
Depending on how the certificates are constructed, they typically Depending on how the certificates are constructed, they typically
also need to contain the host's self-generated public key. Depending also need to contain the host's self-generated public key. Depending
on how the Peer IDs and public keys are attributed, different on how the Node IDs and public keys are attributed, different
scenarios become possible. For example, the Peer IDs may be scenarios become possible. For example, the Node IDs may be
attributed to users, there may be user public key identifiers, and attributed to users, there may be user public key identifiers, and
there may be separate host public key identifiers. Authorization there may be separate host public key identifiers. Authorization
certificates can be used to bind the different types of identifiers certificates can be used to bind the different types of identifiers
together. together.
HITs, as defined in [RFC5201], always start with the ORCHID prefix, HITs, as defined in [RFC5201], always start with the ORCHID prefix.
so there are 100 bits left in the HIT for different Peer ID values. Therefore, there are 100 bits left in the HIT for different Node ID
If an overlay network requires larger address space, it is also values. If an overlay network requires larger address space, it is
possible to use all the 128 bits of a HIT for addressing peer layer also possible to use all the 128 bits of a HIT for addressing peer
identifiers. The benefit of using ORCHID prefix for Peer IDs is that layer identifiers. The benefit of using ORCHID prefix for Node IDs
it makes possible to use them with legacy socket APIs, but in this is that it makes possible to use them with legacy socket APIs, but in
context most of the applications are assumed to be HIP aware and able this context most of the applications are assumed to be HIP aware and
to use a more advanced API supporting full 128-bit identifiers. Even able to use a more advanced API supporting full 128-bit identifiers.
larger address spaces could be supported with additional HIP Even larger address spaces could be supported with an additional HIP
parameter giving the source and destination Peer IDs, but defining parameter giving the source and destination Node IDs, but defining
such a parameter, if needed, is left for future documents. such a parameter, if needed, is left for future documents.
Bootstrap issues such as how to locate an enrollment or a bootstrap Bootstrap issues such as how to locate an enrollment or a bootstrap
server belong to the peer protocol. server belong to the peer protocol.
4.2. Connection Establishment 5.2. Connection Establishment
Nodes in an overlay need to establish connection with other nodes in Nodes in an overlay need to establish connection with other nodes in
different cases. For example, a node typically has connections to different cases. For example, a node typically has connections to
the nodes in its forwarding table. Nodes also need to establish the nodes in its forwarding table. Nodes also need to establish
connections with other nodes in order to exchange application-layer connections with other nodes in order to exchange application-layer
messages. messages.
As discussed earlier, HIP uses the base exchange to establish As discussed earlier, HIP uses the base exchange to establish
connections. A HIP endpoint (the initiator) initiates a HIP base connections. A HIP endpoint (the initiator) initiates a HIP base
exchange with a remote endpoint by sending an I1 packet. The exchange with a remote endpoint by sending an I1 packet. The
skipping to change at page 11, line 30 skipping to change at page 15, line 5
by a HIP rendezvous server. by a HIP rendezvous server.
Since HIP supports NAT traversal, a HIP base exchange over the Since HIP supports NAT traversal, a HIP base exchange over the
overlay will perform an ICE [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice] offer/answer overlay will perform an ICE [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice] offer/answer
exchange between the nodes that are establishing the connection. In exchange between the nodes that are establishing the connection. In
order to perform this exchange, the nodes need to first gather order to perform this exchange, the nodes need to first gather
candidate addresses. Which nodes can be used to obtain reflexive candidate addresses. Which nodes can be used to obtain reflexive
address candidates and which ones can be used to obtain relayed address candidates and which ones can be used to obtain relayed
candidates is defined by the peer protocol. candidates is defined by the peer protocol.
4.3. Lightweight Message Exchanges 5.3. Lightweight Message Exchanges
In some cases, nodes need to perform a lightweight query to another In some cases, nodes need to perform a lightweight query to another
node (e.g., a request followed by a single response). In this node (e.g., a request followed by a single response). In this
situation, establishing a connection using the mechanisms in situation, establishing a connection using the mechanisms in
Section 4.2 for a simple query would be an overkill. A better Section 5.2 for a simple query would be an overkill. A better
solution is to forward a HIP message through the overlay with the solution is to forward a HIP message through the overlay with the
query and another one with the response to the query. The payload of query and another one with the response to the query. The payload of
such HIP packets is integrity protected [I-D.ietf-hip-hiccups]. such HIP packets is integrity protected [I-D.ietf-hip-hiccups].
Nodes in the overlay forward this HIP packet in a hop-by-hop fashion Nodes in the overlay forward this HIP packet in a hop-by-hop fashion
according to the overlay's routing table towards its destination, according to the overlay's routing table towards its destination,
typically through the protected connections established between them. typically through the protected connections established between them.
Again, the overlay acts as a rendezvous server between the nodes Again, the overlay acts as a rendezvous server between the nodes
exchanging the messages. exchanging the messages.
4.4. HIP BONE Instantiation 5.4. HIP BONE Instantiation
As discussed in Section 4, HIP BONE is a generic framework that As discussed in Section 5, HIP BONE is a generic framework that
allows using different peer protocols. A particular HIP BONE allows using different peer protocols. A particular HIP BONE
instance uses a particular peer protocol. The details on how to instance uses a particular peer protocol. The details on how to
implement a HIP BONE using a given peer protocol need to be specified implement a HIP BONE using a given peer protocol need to be specified
in a, so called, HIP BONE instance specification. A HIP BONE in a, so called, HIP BONE instance specification. A HIP BONE
instance specification needs to define, minimally: instance specification needs to define, minimally:
o the peer protocol to be used. o the peer protocol to be used.
o what kind of Peer IDs are used and how they are derived. o what kind of Node IDs are used and how they are derived.
o which peer protocol primitives trigger HIP messages. o which peer protocol primitives trigger HIP messages.
o how the overlay identifier is generated. o how the overlay identifier is generated.
Additionally, a HIP BONE instance specification may need to specify Additionally, a HIP BONE instance specification may need to specify
other details that are specific to the peer protocol used. other details that are specific to the peer protocol used.
As an example, the HIP BONE instance specification for RELOAD As an example, the HIP BONE instance specification for RELOAD
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] is specified in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] is specified in
[I-D.ietf-hip-reload-instance]. [I-D.ietf-hip-reload-instance].
It is assumed that areas not covered by a particular HIP BONE It is assumed that areas not covered by a particular HIP BONE
instance specification are specified by the peer protocol or instance specification are specified by the peer protocol or
elsewhere. These areas include: elsewhere. These areas include:
o the algorithm to create the overlay (e.g., a DHT). o the algorithm to create the overlay (e.g., a DHT).
o overlay maintenance functions. o overlay maintenance functions.
o data storage and retrieval functions. o data storage and retrieval functions.
o the process for obtaining a peer ID. o the process for obtaining a Node ID.
o bootstrap function o bootstrap function.
o how to select STUN and TURN servers for the candidate address o how to select STUN and TURN servers for the candidate address
collection process in NAT traversal scenarios. collection process in NAT traversal scenarios.
Note that the border between HIP BONE instance specification and a Note that the border between HIP BONE instance specification and a
peer protocol specifications is blurry. Depending on how generic the peer protocol specifications is blurry. Depending on how generic the
specification of a given peer protocol is, its associated HIP BONE specification of a given peer protocol is, its associated HIP BONE
instance specification may need to specify more or less details. instance specification may need to specify more or less details.
Also, a HIP BONE instance specification may leave certain areas Also, a HIP BONE instance specification may leave certain areas
unspecified in order to leave their configuration up to each unspecified in order to leave their configuration up to each
particular overlay. particular overlay.
5. Advantages of Using HIP BONE
Using HIP BONE, as opposed to a peer protocol, to perform connection
management in an overlay has a set of advantages. HIP BONE can be
used by any peer protocol. This keeps each peer protocol from
defining primitives needed for connection management (e.g.,
primitives to establish connections and to tunnel messages through
the overlay) and NAT traversal. Having this functionality at a lower
layer allows multiple upper-layer protocols to take advantage of it.
Additionally, having a solution that integrates mobility and
multihoming is useful in many scenarios. Peer protocols do not
typically specify mobility and multihoming solutions. Combining a
peer protocol including NAT traversal with a separate mobility
mechanism and a separate multihoming mechanism can easily lead to
unexpected (and unpleasant) interactions.
6. Overlay HIP Parameters 6. Overlay HIP Parameters
This section defines generic format and protocol behavior for the This section defines generic format and protocol behavior for the
Overlay Identifier and Overlay Time-to-Live (TTL) HIP parameters that Overlay Identifier and Overlay Time-to-Live (TTL) HIP parameters that
can be used in HIP based overlay networks. HIP BONE instance can be used in HIP based overlay networks. HIP BONE instance
specifications define the exact format and content of the Overlay specifications define the exact format and content of the Overlay
Identifier parameter, the cases when the Overlay TTL parameter should Identifier parameter, the cases when the Overlay TTL parameter should
be used, and any additional behavior for each packet. be used, and any additional behavior for each packet.
6.1. Overlay Identifier 6.1. Overlay Identifier
It is possible for a HIP host to participate simultaneously in It is possible for a HIP host to participate simultaneously in
multiple different overlay networks. Therefore, a host needs to know multiple different overlay networks. Therefore, a host needs to know
to which overlay an incoming HIP message belongs to. Thus, all HIP to which overlay an incoming HIP message belongs to. Thus, all HIP
messages that are sent via an overlay, or as a part of operations messages that are sent via an overlay, or as a part of operations
specific to a certain overlay, MUST contain an OVERLAY_ID parameter specific to a certain overlay, MUST contain an OVERLAY_ID parameter
with the identifier of the corresponding overlay network. Instance with the identifier of the corresponding overlay network. Instance
specifications define how the identifier is generated for different specifications define how the identifier is generated for different
types of overlay networks. The generation mechanism SHOULD be such types of overlay networks. The generation mechanism MUST be such
that it is unlikely to generate the same identifier for two different that it is unlikely to generate the same identifier for two different
overlay instances and hence it is RECOMMENDED that the identifier overlay instances and hence it is RECOMMENDED that the identifier
contains at least 32 bits of randomness. contains at least 32 bits of randomness.
The generic format of the OVERLAY_ID parameter is shown in Figure 3. The generic format of the OVERLAY_ID parameter is shown in Figure 8.
Instance specifications define valid length for the parameter and how Instance specifications define valid length for the parameter and how
the identifier values are generated. the identifier values are generated.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identifier / | Identifier /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Padding | / | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type [ TBD by IANA; 980 ] Type [ TBD by IANA; 980 ]
Length Length of the Identifier in octets Length Length of the Identifier in octets
Identifier The identifier value Identifier The identifier value
Padding 0-7 bytes of padding if needed Padding 0-7 bytes of padding if needed
Figure 3: Format of the OVERLAY_ID parameter Figure 8: Format of the OVERLAY_ID Parameter
6.2. Overlay TTL 6.2. Overlay TTL
HIP packets sent in an overlay network MAY contain an Overlay Time- HIP packets sent in an overlay network MAY contain an Overlay Time-
to-live (OVERLAY_TTL) parameter whose TTL value is decremented on to-live (OVERLAY_TTL) parameter whose TTL value is decremented on
each overlay network hop. When a HIP host receives a HIP packet with each overlay network hop. When a HIP host receives a HIP packet with
an OVERLAY_TTL parameter, and the host is not the final recipient of an OVERLAY_TTL parameter, and the host is not the final recipient of
the packet, it MUST decrement the TTL value in the parameter by one the packet, it MUST decrement the TTL value in the parameter by one
before forwarding the packet. before forwarding the packet.
If the TTL value in a received HIP packet is zero, and the receiving If the TTL value in a received HIP packet is zero, and the receiving
host is not the final recipient, the packet MUST be dropped and the host is not the final recipient, the packet MUST be dropped and the
host SHOULD send HIP Notify packet with type OVERLAY_TTL_EXCEEDED host SHOULD send HIP Notify packet with type OVERLAY_TTL_EXCEEDED
(value [TBD by IANA; 70]) to the sender of the original HIP packet. (value [TBD by IANA; 70]) to the sender of the original HIP packet.
The Notification Data field for the OVERLAY_TTL_EXCEEDED The Notification Data field for the OVERLAY_TTL_EXCEEDED
notifications SHOULD contain the HIP header and the TRANSACTION_ID notifications SHOULD contain the HIP header and the TRANSACTION_ID
parameter (if one exists) of the packet whose TTL exceeded. [I-D.ietf-hip-hiccups] parameter (if one exists) of the packet whose
TTL exceeded.
Figure 4 shows the format of the OVERLAY_TTL. The TTL value is given Figure 9 shows the format of the OVERLAY_TTL parameter. The TTL
as the number of overlay hops this packet has left and it is encoded value is given as the number of overlay hops this packet has left and
as unsigned integer. it is encoded as an unsigned integer.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | | Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TTL | Reserved | | TTL | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type [ TBD by IANA; 64010 ] Type [ TBD by IANA; 64011 ]
Length 4 Length 4
TTL The Time-to-live value TTL The Time-to-live value
Reserved Reserved for future use Reserved Reserved for future use
Figure 4: Format of the OVERLAY_TTL parameter Figure 9: Format of the OVERLAY_TTL Parameter
7. Architectural Considerations
Architecturally, HIP can be considered to create a new thin "waist"
layer on the top of the IPv4 and IPv6 networks; see Figure 5. The
HIP layer itself consists of the HIP signaling protocol and one or
more data transport protocols; see Figure 6. The HIP signaling
packets and the data transport packets can take different routes. In
the HIP BONE, the HIP signaling packets are typically first routed
through the overlay and then directly (if possible), while the data
transport packets are typically routed only directly between the end
points.
+--------------------------------------+
| Transport (using HITs or LSIs) |
+--------------------------------------+
| HIP |
+------------------+-------------------+
| IPv4 | IPv6 |
+------------------+-------------------+
Figure 5: HIP as a thin waist
+------------------+-------------------+
| HIP signaling | data transports |
+------------------+-------------------+
Figure 6: HIP layer structure
In HIP BONE, the peer protocol creates a new signaling layer on the
top of HIP. It is used to set up forwarding paths for HIP signaling
messages. This is a similar relationship that an IP routing
protocol, such as OSPF, has to the IP protocol itself. In the HIP
BONE case, the peer protocol plays a role similar to OSPF, and HIP
plays a role similar to IP. The ORCHIDs (or, in general, Peer IDs if
the ORCHID prefix is not used) are used for forwarding HIP packets
according to the information in the routing tables. The peer
protocols are used to exchange routing information based on Peer IDs
and to construct the routing tables.
Architecturally, routing tables are located between the peer protocol
and HIP, as shown in Figure 7. The peer protocol constructs the
routing table and keeps it updated. The HIP layer accesses the
routing table in order to make routing decisions. The bootstrap of a
HIP BONE overlay does not create circular dependencies between the
peer protocol (which needs to use HIP to establish connections with
other nodes) and HIP (which needs the peer protocol to know how to
route messages to other nodes) for the same reasons as the bootstrap
of an IP network does not create circular dependencies between OSPF
and IP. The first connections established by the peer protocol are
with nodes whose locators are known. HIP establishes those
connections as any connection between two HIP nodes where no overlays
are present. That is, there is no need for the overlay to provide a
rendezvous service for those connections.
+--------------------------------------+
| Peer protocol |
+--------------------------------------+
| Routing table |
+--------------------------------------+
| HIP |
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 7: Routing tables
It is possible that different overlays use different routing table
formats. For example, the structure of the routing tables of two
overlays based on different DHTs (Distributed Hash Tables) may be
very different. In order to make routing decisions, the HIP layer
needs to convert the routing table generated by the peer protocol
into a forwarding table that allows the HIP layer select a next-hop
for any packet being routed.
In HIP BONE, the HIP usage of public keys and deriving ORCHIDs
through a hash function can be utilized at the peer protocol side to
better secure routing table maintenance and to protect against
chosen-peer-ID attacks.
The HIP BONE provides quite a lot of flexibility with regards to how
to arrange the different protocols in detail. Figure 8 shows one
potential stack structure.
+-----------------------+--------------+
| peer protocols | media |
+------------------+----+--------------+
| HIP signaling | data transport |
| |
+------------------+-------------------+
| NAT | non-NAT | |
| | |
| IPv4 | IPv6 |
+------------------+-------------------+
Figure 8: Example HIP BONE stack structure The type of the OVERLAY_TTL parameter is critical (as defined in
Section 5.2.1 of [RFC5201]) and therefore the final recipient of the
packet, and all HIP hosts on the path, MUST support it. If the
parameter is used in a scenario where the final recipient does not
support the parameter, the parameter SHOULD be removed before
forwarding the packet to the final recipient.
8. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document provides a high-level framework to build HIP-based This document provides a high-level framework to build HIP-based
overlays. The security properties of HIP and its extensions used in overlays. The security properties of HIP and its extensions used in
this framework are discussed in their respective specifications. this framework are discussed in their respective specifications.
Those security properties can be affected by the way HIP is used in a Those security properties can be affected by the way HIP is used in a
particular overlay (e.g., by how ORCHIDs are derived from Peer IDs). particular overlay. However, those properties are mostly affected by
However, those properties are mostly affected by the design decisions the design decisions made to build a particular overlay; not so much
made to build a particular overlay; not so much by the high-level by the high-level framework specified in this document. Such design
framework specified in this document. Such design decisions are decisions are typically documented in a HIP BONE instance
typically documented in a HIP BONE instance specification, which specification, which describes the security properties of the
describes the security properties of the resulting overlay. resulting overlay.
9. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
HIP BONE is based on ideas coming from conversations and discussions HIP BONE is based on ideas coming from conversations and discussions
with a number of people in the HIP and P2PSIP communities. In with a number of people in the HIP and P2PSIP communities. In
particular, Philip Matthews, Eric Cooper, Joakim Koskela, Thomas particular, Philip Matthews, Eric Cooper, Joakim Koskela, Thomas
Henderson, Bruce Lowekamp, and Miika Komu provided useful input on Henderson, Bruce Lowekamp, and Miika Komu provided useful input on
HIP BONE. HIP BONE.
10. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
This section is to be interpreted according to [RFC5226]. This section is to be interpreted according to [RFC5226].
This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameter Types This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameter Types
[RFC5201] by assigning HIP Parameter Type values for the new HIP [RFC5201] by assigning HIP Parameter Type values for the new HIP
Parameters OVERLAY_ID (defined in Section 6.1) and OVERLAY_TTL Parameters OVERLAY_ID (defined in Section 6.1) and OVERLAY_TTL
(defined in Section 6.2). This document also defines new HIP Notify (defined in Section 6.2). This document also defines a new HIP
packet type [RFC5201] OVERLAY_TTL_EXCEEDED (Section 6.2). Notify packet type [RFC5201] OVERLAY_TTL_EXCEEDED in Section 6.2.
11. References 10. References
11.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4843] Nikander, P., Laganier, J., and F. Dupont, "An IPv6 Prefix [RFC4843] Nikander, P., Laganier, J., and F. Dupont, "An IPv6 Prefix
for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers
(ORCHID)", RFC 4843, April 2007. (ORCHID)", RFC 4843, April 2007.
[RFC5201] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson, [RFC5201] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson,
"Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008. "Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008.
[RFC5202] Jokela, P., Moskowitz, R., and P. Nikander, "Using the [RFC5202] Jokela, P., Moskowitz, R., and P. Nikander, "Using the
Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with
the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)", RFC 5202, April 2008. the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)", RFC 5202, April 2008.
[I-D.ietf-hip-nat-traversal]
Komu, M., Henderson, T., Tschofenig, H., Melen, J., and A.
Keranen, "Basic HIP Extensions for Traversal of Network
Address Translators", draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-09
(work in progress), October 2009.
[I-D.ietf-hip-hiccups]
Camarillo, G. and J. Melen, "HIP (Host Identity Protocol)
Immediate Carriage and Conveyance of Upper- layer Protocol
Signaling (HICCUPS)", draft-ietf-hip-hiccups-02 (work in
progress), March 2010.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006.
[RFC5204] Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC5204] Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Rendezvous Extension", RFC 5204, April 2008. Rendezvous Extension", RFC 5204, April 2008.
[RFC5205] Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, "Host Identity Protocol [RFC5205] Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, "Host Identity Protocol
(HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions", RFC 5205, (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions", RFC 5205,
April 2008. April 2008.
[RFC5206] Nikander, P., Henderson, T., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko, "End- [RFC5206] Nikander, P., Henderson, T., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko, "End-
Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity
Protocol", RFC 5206, April 2008. Protocol", RFC 5206, April 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC5338] Henderson, T., Nikander, P., and M. Komu, "Using the Host [RFC5338] Henderson, T., Nikander, P., and M. Komu, "Using the Host
Identity Protocol with Legacy Applications", RFC 5338, Identity Protocol with Legacy Applications", RFC 5338,
September 2008. September 2008.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[I-D.ietf-hip-native-api] [I-D.ietf-hip-native-api]
Komu, M. and T. Henderson, "Basic Socket Interface Komu, M. and T. Henderson, "Basic Socket Interface
Extensions for Host Identity Protocol (HIP)", Extensions for Host Identity Protocol (HIP)",
draft-ietf-hip-native-api-12 (work in progress), draft-ietf-hip-native-api-12 (work in progress),
January 2010. January 2010.
[I-D.ietf-hip-nat-traversal]
Komu, M., Henderson, T., Tschofenig, H., Melen, J., and A.
Keranen, "Basic HIP Extensions for Traversal of Network
Address Translators", draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-09
(work in progress), October 2009.
[I-D.ietf-hip-hiccups]
Nikander, P., Camarillo, G., and J. Melen, "HIP (Host
Identity Protocol) Immediate Carriage and Conveyance of
Upper-layer Protocol Signaling (HICCUPS)",
draft-ietf-hip-hiccups-01 (work in progress),
January 2009.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice] [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice]
Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols",
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19 (work in progress), October 2007. draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19 (work in progress), October 2007.
[I-D.ietf-p2psip-base] [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]
Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., and Jennings, C., Lowekamp, B., Rescorla, E., Baset, S., and
H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) H. Schulzrinne, "REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-06 (work in Base Protocol", draft-ietf-p2psip-base-07 (work in
progress), November 2009. progress), February 2010.
[I-D.ietf-hip-reload-instance] [I-D.ietf-hip-reload-instance]
Keranen, A., Camarillo, G., and J. Maenpaa, "HIP BONE Keranen, A., Camarillo, G., and J. Maenpaa, "Host Identity
Instance Specification for RELOAD", Protocol-Based Overlay Networking Environment (HIP BONE)
draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-00 (work in progress), Instance Specification for REsource LOcation And Discovery
Jan 2010. (RELOAD)", draft-ietf-hip-reload-instance-00 (work in
progress), January 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Gonzalo Camarillo Gonzalo Camarillo
Ericsson Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11 Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420 Jorvas 02420
Finland Finland
Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 55 change blocks. 
238 lines changed or deleted 299 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/