Subject: [Hipsec] Next Steps for HIP

From: [email-masked] (Pekka Nikander)
Date: Mon Dec 1 06:52:01 2003

Folks,

I am still in the middle of processing the comments that
were made during the BOF and still struggling to understand
what would be the best way forward.  Hence, what I write
below may be half baked and may change as I get better
understanding of the situation.  On the other hand, I am sure
that we need more discussion about this topic in order to
find out what is the best way forward.

Firstly, I want to remind everybody that the currently stated
goal of this proposed work at the IETF and IRTF is to allow
*experimentation* with the proposed identifier / locator split.

The proposed change is architecturally larger than e.g. moving
from IPv4 to IPv6; at the same time it may be operationally
much easier.  Hence, many people (me included) are hesitant in
seeing this kind of new architecture to be universally adopted to
the Internet without proper experimentation first.  We still do
not know what are the likely effects of HIP in the large.

One aspect to consider is to compare introducing HIP to the intro-
duction of NAT, which led to large scale changes in the nature of
applications.  I might claim that it is probably better for the
Internet to introduce the change in a controlled way than to allow
it to happen without any control.

Secondly, HIP is by no way the only proposal in this area.
Indeed, there are multiple proposals appearing in the multi6
working group.  It is likely that the solution adopted by
the multi6 working group will be less ambitious than HIP is.
On the other hand, we can hope that the adopted solution
would be "forward compatible" with HIP (or whatever HIP
will become to).  At the same time, there are even more far
fetching solutions being proposed at the (academic) research
community.

Personally, I do not believe that the HIP that we have now
is the same as the "HIP" that eventually will be adopted to
the Internet in the large.  (That is, I do believe that we
need to do the id/loc split, but I don't know how exactly.)
Indeed, I am almost sure that there are aspects in the current
HIP structure that we want to change.  We just don't know what
those aspects are.  Hence, we want to have an open situation
where we can change any of the current HIP aspects without
causing too much back pressure from the market.

Thirdly, we have to remember that the IETF is to a large extent
an organization that aims to lead the Internet to the future.
Its main product is standards based on rough consensus and
running code.  Hence, if we want to change the Internet with HIP,
- we have to show that HIP indeed is good for the Internet,
- we have to reach rough consensus, and
- we must have running code.
Hence, we have to choose a working structure that allows us to
go forward along all these three aspects:
- exploring the consequences of HIP,
- building consensus, and
- having running and working code.
I believe that having both a working group, for building
consensus and defining details, and a research group, for
exploration and alternative (sub)solutions, may be a good way.
However, I am also open to other suggestions; maybe there
are better ways to go forward.

--Pekka Nikander

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Moskowitz)
Date: Mon Dec 1 14:44:00 2003

I just discovered that practically all my HIPSEC messages were ending up in 
my Junk folder.  Some with ratings as high as 90!

I've made some changes that I hope will stop such behaviour.  Anyway, I am 
sorry if I have been out of the loop.

>*experimentation* with the proposed identifier / locator split.

If only more of the 'new' ideas that have been in the IETF over the past 10 
years had been handled in this manner.

>- we must have running code.

It would be interesting indeed, if other work was made to work under the 
same premise.

Oh course, I am now working in IEEE 802, and, for the most part, NO ONE 
does much of anything until there is a standard to complain about  :)

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Moskowitz)
Date: Mon Dec 1 14:52:01 2003

At 03:15 PM 12/1/2003, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>I just discovered that practically all my HIPSEC messages were ending up 
>in my Junk folder.  Some with ratings as high as 90!
>

Perhaps premature, but this message ended up in the proper folder.  I would 
LIKE to think I've trained this puppy.