Subject: [Hipsec] Next Steps for HIP

From: [email-masked] (Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student))
Date: Wed Nov 26 19:58:00 2003

=20

>Whereas, some items on the proposed charter (the use of DHTs for

>HIT->Address mapping, perhaps rendezvous and proxy?) are much less

>well-defined and might benefit from a concentrated effort in the

>research community before coming to the IETF.

=20

mapping is not a big deal; It just requires an efficient=20

data structure (which is not a research effort). The=20

known distributed object location algorithms are DHT, skip

lists and  plankton algorithm etc. I guess, this can even=20

be left as an implementation exercise . If HIP needs a=20

simple HIT->IP address mapping, go for DHT. But, DHT doesn't

resolve complex queries. If one is interested in seeing how=20

HIP system work with other functions say SLP, we need to=20

think about other alternatives. One can do a late binding=20

to couple both the systems. In such cases, you need a better=20

mapping system which can answer imprecise queries(which is a=20

research effort.)

=20

But, as per my understanding of HIP effort, it requires a=20

rendezvous system; something other than DNS(as DNS cache at=20

a larger time scale.) DHT suffers from churn and security

problems. Instead, why can't we just have an agent (like=20

home agent in MIP; but can be present anywhere) which can=20

provide all the currently available/known/best locators for=20

the HIT identifier?

=20

In short, I don't see a need for IRTF RG. The problem of

selecting a suitable data structure to implement a=20

rendenzous mechanism is not a research issue.=20

=20