HIP RG – IETF 65 Dallas, March 24, 2006 HIP Privacy Extensions draft-matos-hip-privacy-extensions-01 Alfredo Matos (IT Aveiro)

Why are we still doing this ? Location Privacy Do not handout topology information There are services on the Internet for location HIP End-to-end Locator and Indentifier are decoupled Separate topology (and routing) from identification

Remembering the concept...

From IETF 63 to now... Implementation work Diffs from -00 to -01 HIT Based Routing (stalled) IPv6 access networks (ongoing) Diffs from -00 to -01 Comestic (figures, naming, sections) References IPv6 and RVA (minor issues) Consistency (implementation)

HIT Based Routing Implementation Concepts Route for every HIT on each router HIPL based Base Exchange problem (resolution) I1 IPv6 header: Src I-HIT Dst R-HIT How to resolve R-HIT at the RVA ? Kernel to Userspace+BEET broke the code Concepts Forward all to RVA IPv6 Header (HIT,HIT) If no route to HIT forward to RVA

IPv6 Access Networks Implementation Concept HIPL integrated RVA and RVA Association (current work) Concept Local IP Initiator, Global IP Responder This is SPI based NAT (RVA replaces local IP) RVA stores SRC,DST,SPI values during BE Reveals domains to end-points

Next steps HIT Based Routing IPv6 Access networks Implementation (redesign) Tamper with the BEET/XFRM code IPv6 Access networks Conceptual Define the Tunnels/Translations/BEET's Implementation Tamper with BEET/XFRM/IP6tunnel Integrate RVA functionality with: draft-tschofenig-hiprg-hip-natfw-traversal draft-schmitt-hip-nat-traversal

Next steps in the RG Identity Based Routing or IPv6 ? How to handle Protected Areas Completely relayed Base Exchange ? RVA's relay I1,R1,I2,R2 Enables a Base Exchange without revealing the endpoint's locations