Subject: [Hipsec] Agenda

From: [email-masked] (Gonzalo Camarillo)
Date: Mon Nov 1 03:01:00 2004

Folks,

this is the preliminary agenda for the meeting in Washington.
http://hip.piuha.net/meetings/ietf61/agenda.html

Regards,

Gonzalo
HIP co-chair

From [email-masked],
 Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>  Mon Nov  1 04:47:03 2004
From: [email-masked],
 Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]> (Pekka Nikander)
Date: Mon Nov  1 04:47:03 2004
Subject: [Hipsec] Re: [Hipsec-rg] 128bit LSI -- why?
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

[This questions belongs to the working group, not the research
group.  Please direct all future discussion there.]

>   I found that in the new ID (draft-ietf-hip-base-01), a 128 bits LSI 
> is
> introduced.  In my understanding, 32bits LSI is used in the IPv4 
> headers to
> replace IP4 addresses. HIT is already 128bits and can be used in the 
> IPv6
> Header. What is the purpose of the 128bits LSI?

To make a difference between IPv6 addresses and HITs at
the legacy IPv6 API, for those applications that can
easily work without modifications both on HIP and on IPv6.

The only difference between a HIT and a 128-bit LSI is that
the upper most TBD bits of the value are fixed, while in HIT
they come from the hash.

Putting it in another way, we do not believe that we could
reserve a 2-bit prefix from the IPv6 address space for HITs.
On the other hand, from the HIP point of view it would be
wasteful not to use the upper most bits of a HIT, on the
protocol level.

Interoperability is currently preserved by requiring that
the host SHOULD ignore the top-most TBD bits when comparing
HITs for equality.

You may consider this as a transition mechanism, hopefully
to be deprecated at some (distant) point of time.

--Pekka

---

From: [email-masked] (Pekka Nikander)
Date: Mon Nov 1 04:49:01 2004

> http://hip.piuha.net/meetings/ietf61/agenda.html

I'm afraid we need more time for rendezvous.  IMHO it is
less baked than the other drafts.  OTHO, as we are, IMHO,
unlikely to get it into WG LC after this meeting, it might
be a good idea to put it to the end, and allocated whatever
remains to it.

--Pekka

---

From: [email-masked] (Gonzalo Camarillo)
Date: Wed Nov 3 05:53:01 2004

Hi Pekka,

I have done as you suggest and I have placed the rvs presentation at the 
end of the meeting. In any event, all the presenters have gotten slots 
way longer than they requested, so we should not have time-related 
problems during the meeting.

Regarding WGLCs, the idea is to let people get implementation experience 
before performing any WGLC.

Thanks,

Gonzalo