Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-hip-mm-04.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Thomas,

I am fine with your suggestions.  Just the following nit:

Are locator types critical?  What happens when a host tries to add or
move to a locator which is not supported by its peer?

I agree with your point that it is probably useful to define some error
behavior to distinguish between unsupported Locator Types and dropped packets.

There is a HIP NOTIFY mechanism defined in the base spec which could be
reused for this purpose. I would suggest that we define a new Notify Message Type in the range 31-50 for "LOCATOR_TYPE_UNSUPPORTED", with
the Notification Data field containing the Locator(s) that the receiver
failed to process.

The following rules seem appropriate:
> - a HIP host SHOULD send a NOTIFY error if an unsupported Locator
> Type is received in a LOCATOR parameter, when such Locator
is also declared to be the Preferred locator for the peer
> - otherwise, a HIP host MAY send a NOTIFY error if
an unsupported Locator Type is received in a LOCATOR parameter

Shouldn't the transmission of the NOTIFY be a "MUST" in the special case where the LOCATOR parameter contains /only/ locators of unsupported type? The preferred locator would in this case remain the same as before, meaning that it would be in DEPRECATED status.

Best,
- Christian

--
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]