Overview of HIP Proxy Scenarios and Solutions
draft-irtf-hiprg-proxies-05
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(hiprg RG)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Dacheng Zhang , Xiaohu Xu , Jiankang Yao , Zehn Cao | ||
Last updated | 2012-09-09 (Latest revision 2012-03-08) | ||
RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | IRTF state | (None) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
A Host Identity Protocol (HIP) proxy is a host that holds the keying material, and participates in HIP-based communications, on behalf of one or more hosts. HIP proxies play an important role in the transition from the current Internet architecture to the HIP architecture. A core objective of a HIP proxy is to facilitate the communication between legacy (or Non- HIP) hosts and HIP hosts while not modifying the host protocol stacks. In this document, the legacy hosts served by proxies are referred to as Legacy Hosts (LHs). Currently, various design solutions of HIP proxies have been proposed. These solutions may be applicable in different working circumstances. In this document, these solutions are investigated in detail to compare their effectiveness in different scenarios.
Authors
Dacheng Zhang
Xiaohu Xu
Jiankang Yao
Zehn Cao
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)