Subject: RE: [Hipsec] moving from R2-SENT to UNASSOCIATED

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 07:51:09 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Nikander [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:14 PM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Tuomas Aura
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] moving from R2-SENT to UNASSOCIATED
> 
> > Because of this, the timeout value to move from R2-SENT
> > should be large enough to avoid such possibilities.  And
> > that makes me question whether any timer is needed.  Moving
> > from R2-SENT to ESTABLISHED could instead just be triggered
> > based on reception of a packet (data on a SPI, HIP UPDATE)
> > that indicates that the peer got the R2.
> >
> > If the group agrees, I'll propose some text to change this
> > behavior.
> 
> In principle, sounds fine to me.  OTOH, I think it might be
> good to allow a *long* timeout after which the Responder
> MAY revert to UNASSOCIATED.  That timeout could be in the
> order of the default inactivity timeout of the association...
> 

We have such a timeout in ESTABLISHED state, but it moves
to CLOSING.  I agree that there could be a long timeout
after which the Responder MAY change state, but I would suggest
trying to pass through CLOSING state, so as to avoid cases
where one side silently drops the association without notifying
the other side.

(note that the acronym "UAL", which I assume is the "default
inactivity timeout", appears in the state machine but is nowhere
defined in the document).

Tom

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 17:39:52 +0200

> defined in the document).

Sorry it's my mistake (when I merged Erik's CLOSE/CLOSE_ACK handshake 
with the HIP state machine). UAL signification (Unused Association 
Lifetime) is given in the CLOSING state text, so after it has been 
used in the ESTABLISHED state text. 

I think we should at least move this signification in the ESTABLISHED 
state text, and perhaps define it properly prior to states 
description. For wxample: "When a HIP node hasn't used a HIP 
association for Unused Association Lifetime (UAL) minutes, it will 
begin to tear down the association".

It might also be good to suggest a typical value (5 min?) for 
implementors.

Thoughts?

--julien

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:45:20 +0300

> where one side silently drops the association without notifying

OK to me.

--Pekka