HIP Working Group J. Laganier
Internet-Draft DoCoMo Euro-Labs
Expires: December 12, 2005 L. Eggert
NEC
June 10, 2005
Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension
draft-ietf-hip-rvs-02
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 12, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document discusses a rendezvous extension for the Host Identity
Protocol (HIP). The rendezvous extension extends HIP and the HIP
registration extension for initiating communication between HIP nodes
via HIP rendezvous servers. Rendezvous servers improve reachability
and operation when HIP nodes are multi-homed or mobile.
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of Rendezvous Server Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 Diagram Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Rendezvous Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Relaying the Base Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Rendezvous Server Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 LOCATOR Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 RENDEZVOUS Registration Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3 New Parameter Formats and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1 RVS_HMAC Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2 FROM Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.3 VIA_RVS Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4 Processing Outgoing I1 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5 Processing Incoming I1 packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Editorial Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Document Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
1. Introduction
The current Internet uses IP addresses for two purposes. First, they
are topological locators for network attachment points. Second, they
act as names for the attached network interfaces. Saltzer [9]
discusses these naming concepts in detail. Routing and other
network-layer mechanisms are based on the locator aspects of IP
addresses. Transport-layer protocols and mechanisms typically use IP
addresses in their role as names for communication endpoints. This
dual use of IP addresses limits the flexibility of the Internet
architecture. The need to avoid readdressing in order to maintain
existing transport-layer connections complicates advanced
functionality, such as mobility, multi-homing, or network
composition.
The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) architecture [1] defines a new third
namespace. The Host Identity namespace decouples the name and
locator roles currently filled by IP addresses. Transport-layer
mechanisms operate on Host Identities instead of using IP addresses
as endpoint names. Network-layer mechanisms continue to use IP
addresses as pure locators. Because of this decoupling the HIP layer
needs to map Host Identities into IP addresses.
Without HIP, a node needs to know its peer's IP address to make
initial contact. The Host Identity Protocol architecture [1] does
not change this basic property, but introduces an additional,
optional piece of infrastructure, the rendezvous server (RVS). An
RVS serves as an additional initial contact point ("rendezvous
point") for its clients. The clients of an RVS are HIP nodes that
use the HIP Registration Protocol [2] to register their HIT->IP
address mappings with the RVS. After this registration, other HIP
nodes can initiate a base exchange using the IP address of the RVS
instead of the current IP address of the node they attempt to
contact. Essentially, the clients of an RVS become reachable at the
RVS' IP addresses. Peers can initiate a HIP base exchange with the
IP address of the RVS, which will relay this initial communication
such that the base exchange may successfully complete.
When HIP nodes frequently change their network attachment points,
using a RVS can improve reachability and operation. Without an RVS,
a HIP node needs to update its DNS entry with its current IP address
before it becomes reachable to its peers. Although the DNS offers
mechanisms for dynamic updates to records[10][11], they may not be
suitable when a record changes frequently. Caching, state lifetimes
and deficiences in existing DNS implementations limit the rate-of-
change for a given record. When using an RVS - which is assumed to
be reachable at a static or at least infrequently changing IP address
- HIP nodes need not update their DNS records whenever their local IP
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
addresses change. Instead, they register the IP address of their RVS
in their DNS entry and then update only their RVS when their IP
addresses change. Because the RVS is specifically designed to
support high-rate updates, this indirection can improve reachability
of HIP nodes.
2. Terminology
This section defines terms used throughout the remainder of this
specification.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3].
In addition to the terminology defined in [2], this document defines
and uses the following terms:
Rendezvous Service
A HIP service provided by a rendezvous server to its rendezvous
clients. The rendezvous server offers to relay some of the
arriving base exchange packets between the initiator and
responder. [Comment.1]
Rendezvous Server (RVS)
A HIP registrar providing rendezvous service.
Rendezvous Client
A HIP requester that has registered for rendezvous service at a
rendezvous server.
Rendezvous Registration
A HIP registration for rendezvous service, established between a
rendezvous server and a rendezvous client.
3. Overview of Rendezvous Server Operation
HIP decouples domain names from IP addresses. Because transport
protocols bind to host identities, they remain unaware if the set of
IP addresses associated with a host identity changes. This change
can have various reasons, including, but not limited to, mobility and
multi-homing.
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
+-----+ +-----+
| |-------I1------>| |
| I |<------R1-------| R |
| |-------I2------>| |
| |<------R2-------| |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 1: HIP base exchange without rendezvous server.
Figure 2 shows a simple HIP base exchange without a rendezvous
server, in which the initiator initiates the exchange directly with
the responder by sending an I1 packet to the responder's IP address,
as per the HIP base specification [4].
Proposed extensions for mobility and multi-homing [5] allow a HIP
node to notify its peers about changes in its set of IP addresses.
These extensions require an established HIP association between two
nodes, i.e., a completed HIP base exchange.
However, such a HIP node MAY also want to be reachable to other
future correspondent peers that are unaware of its location change.
The HIP architecture [1] introduces rendezvous servers with whom a
HIP node MAY register its host identity tags (HITs) and current IP
addresses. An RVS relays HIP packets arriving for these HITs to the
node's registered IP addresses. When a HIP node has registered with
an RVS, it SHOULD record the IP address of its RVS in its DNS record,
using the HIPRVS DNS record type defined in [12].
+-----+
+--I1--->| RVS |---I1--+
| +-----+ |
| v
+-----+ +-----+
| |<------R1-------| |
| I |-------I2------>| R |
| |<------R2-------| |
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 2: HIP base exchange with a rendezvous server.
Figure 2 shows a HIP base exchange involving a rendezvous server. It
is assumed that HIP node R previously registered its HITs and current
IP addresses with the RVS, using the HIP registration protocol [2].
When the initiator I tries to establish contact with the responder R,
it MAY send the I1 of the base exchange either to one of R's DNS
addresses or it MAY send it to the address of one of R's rendezvous
servers instead. Here, I obtains the IP address of R's rendezvous
server from R's DNS record and then sends the I1 packet of the HIP
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
base exchange to RVS. RVS, noticing that the HIT contained in the
arriving I1 packet is not one of its own, MUST check its current
registrations to determine if if needs to relay the packets. Here,
it determines that the HIT belongs to R and then relays the I1 packet
to the registered IP address. R then completes the base exchange
without further assistance from RVS by sending an R1 directly to the
I's IP address, as obtained from the I1 packet.
3.1 Diagram Notation
Notation Significance
-------- ------------
I, R I and R are the respective source and destination IP
addresses in the IP header.
HIT-I, HIT-R HIT-I and HIT-R are the initiator's and the
responder's HITs in the packet, respectively.
LOC:I A LOCATOR parameter containing the IP address I is
present in the HIP header.
FROM:I A FROM parameter containing the IP address I is
present in the HIP header.
VIA:RVS A VIA_RVS parameter containing the IP addresses of an
RVS is present in the HIP header.
REG_REQ A REG_REQUEST parameter is present in the HIP header.
REG_RES A REG_RESPONSE parameter is present in the HIP header.
3.2 Rendezvous Client Registration
Before a rendezvous server starts to relay HIP packets to a
rendezvous client, the rendezvous client needs to register with it to
receive rendezvous service by using the HIP registration extension
[2] as illustrated in the following schema:
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
+-----+ +-----+
| | I1 | |
| |--------------------------->| |
| |<---------------------------| |
| I | R1(REG_INFO) | RVS |
| | I2(REG_REQ) | |
| |--------------------------->| |
| |<---------------------------| |
| | R2(REG_RES) | |
+-----+ +-----+
3.3 Relaying the Base Exchange
If a HIP node and one of its rendezvous servers have a rendezvous
registration, the rendezvous servers MUST relay inbound I1 packets
that contain one of the client's HITs by rewriting the IP header.
They replace the destination IP address of the I1 packet with one of
the IP addresses of the owner of the HIT, i.e., the rendezvous
client. They MUST also recompute the IP checksum accordingly.
Because of egress filtering on the path from the RVS to the client, a
HIP rendezvous server MAY also need to replace the source IP address,
i.e., the IP address of I, with one of its own IP addresses. The
replacement IP address SHOULD be chosen according to [6] and, when
IPv6 is used, to [7]. Because this replacement conceals the
initiator's IP address, the RVS MUST append a FROM parameter
containing the original source IP address of the packet. This FROM
parameter MUST be integrity protected by a RVS_HMAC keyed with the
corresponding rendezvous registration integrity key [2].
I1(RVS, R, HIT-I, HIT-R
I1(I, RVS, HIT-I, HIT-R) +---------+ FROM:I, VIA:RVS)
+----------------------->| |--------------------+
| | RVS | |
| | | |
| +---------+ |
| V
+-----+ R1(R, I, HIT-R, HIT-I, LOC:R, VIA:RVS) +-----+
| |<---------------------------------------------| |
| | | |
| I | I2(I, R, HIT-I, HIT-R) | R |
| |--------------------------------------------->| |
| |<---------------------------------------------| |
+-----+ R2(R, I, HIT-R, HIT-I) +-----+
Figure 5: Rendezvous server rewriting IP addresses
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
This modification of HIP packets at a rendezvous server can be
problematic. The HIP protocol uses two kinds of packet integrity
checks: hop-by-hop and end-to-end. The HIP checksum is a hop-by-hop
check and SHOULD be verified and recomputed by each of the on-path
HIP-enabled middleboxes, such as rendezvous servers. The HMAC and
SIGNATURE are end-to-end checks and MUST be computed by the sender
and verified by the receiver.
The RVS MUST verify the checksum field of an I1 packet doing any
modifications. After modification, it MUST recompute the checksum
field using the updated HIP header, which possibly included new FROM
and RVS_HMAC parameters, and a pseudo-header containing the updated
source and destination IP addresses. This enables the responder to
validate the checksum of the I1 packet "as is", without having to
parse any FROM parameters.
The SIGNATURE and HMAC verification MUST NOT cover any FROM and
RVS_HMAC parameters added by rendezvous servers. Hence, HMAC and
SIGNATURE are unaffected by the modifications performed by an RVS.
The computation and verification of HMAC and SIGNATURE MUST only
cover the original HIP header with a checksum field set to zero, MUST
NOT cover the pseudo header that contains modified IP addresses, and
mUST NOT cover any new FROM and RVS_HMAC parameters that MAY be
situated after the HMAC and SIGNATURE in the HIP header.
4. Rendezvous Server Extensions
The following sections describe extensions to the HIP registration
protocol [2], allowing a HIP node to register with a rendezvous
server for rendezvous service and notify the RVS aware of changes to
its current location. It also describes an extension to the HIP
protocol [4] itself, allowing establishment of HIP associations via
one or more HIP rendezvous server(s).
4.1 LOCATOR Parameter
A HIP responder contacted via an RVS MAY use a LOCATOR parameter in
the R1 packet to notify the initiator of its current IP address, in
conformance with the guidelines specified in [5].
4.2 RENDEZVOUS Registration Type
This specification defines an additional registration for the HIP
registration protocol [2] that allows registering with a rendezvous
server for rendezvous service.
Number Registration Type
------ -----------------
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
1 RENDEZVOUS
4.3 New Parameter Formats and Processing
4.3.1 RVS_HMAC Parameter
The RVS_HMAC is an OPTIONAL parameter whose only difference with the
HMAC parameter defined in [4] is its "type" code. This change causes
it to be located after the FROM parameter (as opposed to the HMAC):
Type [ TBD by IANA (65472 = 2^16 - 2^6) ]
Length 20
HMAC 160 low order bits of a HMAC keyed with the
appropriate HIP integrity key (HIP_lg or HIP_gl),
established when rendezvous registration happened.
This HMAC is computed over the HIP packet, excluding
RVS_HMAC and any following parameters. The
"checksum" field MUST be set to zero and the HIP header
length in the HIP common header MUST be calculated
not to cover any excluded parameter when the
"authenticator" field is calculated.
To allow a rendezvous client and its RVS to verify the integrity of
packets flowing between them, both SHOULD protect packets with an
added RVS_HMAC parameter keyed with the HIP_lg or HIP_gl integrity
key. A valid RVS_HMAC SHOULD be present on every packets flowing
between a client and a server and MUST be present when a FROM
parameters is processed.
4.3.2 FROM Parameter
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type [ TBD by IANA (65470 = 2^16 - 2^6 - 2) ]
Length 16
Address An IPv6 address or an IPv4-in-IPv6 format IPv4 address.
A rendezvous server MUST add a FROM parameter containing the original
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
source IP address of a HIP packet whenever the source IP address in
the IP header is rewritten. If one or more FROM parameters are
already present, the new FROM parameter MUST be appended after the
existing ones.
Whenever an RVS inserts a FROM parameter, it MUST insert an RVS_HMAC
protecting the packet integrity, especially the IP address included
in the FROM parameter.
4.3.3 VIA_RVS Parameter
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . .
. . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type [ TBD by IANA (65474 = 2^16 - 2^6 + 2) ]
Length Variable
Address An IPv6 address or an IPv4-in-IPv6 format IPv4 address
After the responder receives a relayed I1 packet, it can begin to
send HIP packets addressed to the initiator's IP address, without
further assistance from an RVS. For debugging purposes, it MAY
include a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of these
packets. When a responder does so, it MUST append a newly created
VIA_RVS parameter at the end of the HIP packet. The main goal of
using the VIA_RVS parameter is to allow operators to diagnose
possible issues encountered while establishing a HIP association via
a RVS.
4.4 Processing Outgoing I1 Packets
An initiator SHOULD not send an opportunistic I1 with a NULL
destination HIT to an IP address which is known to be a rendezvous
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
server address, unless it wants to establish a HIP association with
the rendezvous server itself and does not know its HIT.
If an RVS needs to rewrite the source IP address of an I1 packet due
to egress filtering, then it MUST add a FROM parameter to the I1 that
contasins the initiator's source IP address. This FROM parameter
MUST be protected by a RVS_HMAC keyed with the integrity key
established at rendezvous registration.
4.5 Processing Incoming I1 packets
When a rendezvous server receives an I1 whose destination HIT is not
its own, it MUST consult its registration database to find a
registration for the rendezvous service established by the HIT owner.
If it finds an appropriate registration, it MUST relay the packet to
the registered IP address. If it does not find an appropriate
registration, is MUST drop the packet.
A rendezvous server SHOULD interpret any incoming opportunistic I1
(i.e., an I1 with a NULL destination HIT) as an I1 addressed to
itself and SHOULD NOT attempt to relay it to one of its clients.
When a rendezvous client receives an I1, it MUST validate any present
RVS_HMAC parameter. If the RVS_HMAC cannot be verified, the packet
SHOULD be dropped. If the RVS_HMAC cannot be verified and a FROM
parameter is present, the packet MUST be dropped.
A rendezvous client acting as responder SHOULD drop opportunistic I1s
that include a FROM parameter, because this indicates that the I1 has
been relayed.
5. Security Considerations
The security aspects of different HIP rendezvous mechanisms are
currently being investigated. This section describes the known
threats introduced by these HIP extensions and implications on the
overall security of HIP and IP. In particular, it argues that the
extensions described in this document do not introduce additional
threats to the Internet infrastructure.
It is difficult to encompass the whole scope of threats introduced by
rendezvous servers, because their presence has implications both at
the IP and HIP layers. In particular, these extensions might allow
for redirection, amplification and reflection attacks at the IP
layer, as well as attacks on the HIP layer itself, for example, man-
in-the-middle attacks against HIP's SIGMA protocol.
If an initiator has a priori knowledge of the responder's host
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
identity when it first contacts it via an RVS, it has a means to
verify the signatures in the HIP exchange, thus conforming to the
SIGMA protocol which is resilient to man-in-the-middle attacks.
If an initiator does not have a priori knowledge of the responder's
host identiy (so-called "opportunistic initiators"), it is almost
impossible to defend the HIP exchange against these attacks, because
the public keys exchanged cannot be authenticated. The only approach
would be to mitigate hijacking threats on HIP state by requiring an
R1 answering an opportunistic I1 to come from the same IP address
that originally sent the I1. This procedure retains a level of
security which is equivalent to what exists in the Internet today.
However, for reasons of simplicity, this specification does not allow
to establish a HIP association via a rendezvous server in an
opportunistic manner.
6. IANA Considerations
This section is to be interpreted according to [8].
This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameters Types by
assigning new HIP Parameter Types values for the new HIP Parameters
defined in Section 4.3:
o RVS_HMAC (defined in Section 4.3.1)
o FROM (defined in Section 4.3.2)
o VIA_RVS (defined in Section 4.3.3)
7. Acknowledgments
The following people have provided thoughtful and helpful discussions
and/or suggestions that have improved this document: Marcus Brunner,
Tom Henderson, Miika Komu, Mika Kousa, Pekka Nikander, Justino
Santos, Simon Schuetz, Tim Shepard, Kristian Slavov, Martin
Stiemerling and Juergen Quittek.
Lars Eggert is partly funded by Ambient Networks, a research project
supported by the European Commission under its Sixth Framework
Program. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the
official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of
the Ambient Networks project or the European Commission.
8. References
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
8.1 Normative References
[1] Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol Architecture",
draft-ietf-hip-arch-02 (work in progress), January 2005.
[2] Koponen, T. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Registration Extension", draft-koponen-hip-registration-00 (work
in progress), February 2005.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-base-02
(work in progress), February 2005.
[5] Nikander, P., "End-Host Mobility and Multi-Homing with Host
Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-mm-01 (work in progress),
February 2005.
[6] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication
Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[7] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[8] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
8.2 Informative References
[9] Saltzer, J., "On the Naming and Binding of Network
Destinations", RFC 1498, August 1993.
[10] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, "Dynamic
Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136,
April 1997.
[11] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.
[12] Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions", draft-ietf-hip-dns-01
(work in progress), February 2005.
[13] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
[14] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider Security
Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013, November 2000.
Editorial Comments
[] In this specification the client of the RVS is always
the responder. However, there might be reasons to allow
a client to initiate a base exchange through its own
RVS, like NAT and firewall traversal. This specification
does not address such scenarios which should be
specified in other documents.
Authors' Addresses
Julien Laganier
DoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 312
Munich 80687
Germany
Phone: +49 89 56824 231
Email: julien.ietf@laposte.net
URI: http://www.docomolab-euro.com/
Lars Eggert
NEC Network Laboratories
Kurfuerstenanlage 36
Heidelberg 69115
Germany
Phone: +49 6221 90511 43
Fax: +49 6221 90511 55
Email: lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de
URI: http://www.netlab.nec.de/
Appendix A. Document Revision History
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Revision | Comments |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 02 | Removed multiple relaying techniques but simple I1 |
| | header rewriting. Updated new HIP parameters type |
| | numbers (consistent with new layout and assigning |
| | rules from draft-ietf-hip-base.) Updated IANA |
| | Considerations. |
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
| 01 | Splitted out the registration sub-protocol. Simplify |
| | typology of relaying techniques (keep only TUNNEL, |
| | REWRITE, BIDIRECTIONAL). Rewrote IANA Considerations. |
| 00 | Initial version as a HIP WG item. |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft HIP Rendezvous Extension June 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Laganier & Eggert Expires December 12, 2005 [Page 16]
