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

2. 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

3. Remembering the concept...

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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