1. Review of HIPRG status at IAB breakfast Andrei Gurtov Tom Henderson 22.3.2007

2. Host Identity Protocol The Host Identity Protocol is an explicit proposal for a host-based ID/locator split Proponents believe that it provides a longer-term architectural solution to –Network-level security (IPsec integration) –Mobility –Multihoming –Limiting denial-of-service vectors Deployment paths seem to exist without requiring large- scale network infrastructure or changes to applications Three interoperating implementations, variably supporting Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, and Mac OS

3. HIPRG Goals Provide a forum for discussion and development of aspects of the HIP architecture that are still in research phase and not ready for WG-level standardization Stimulate, coordinate, discuss, and summarize experiments on deploying HIP, to provide feedback at some later date to the IAB and IESG on the consequences and effects of a wide-scale adoption of HIP. –For the latter goal, the RG is to produce an experiment report, which currently exists in draft form (draft-irtf-hip-experiment-03.txt).

4. HIP RG The HIP WG finishes specifications on base exchange, mobility and multihoming, DNS, rendezvous, registration extensions Topics on NAT traversal, native API, legacy application support, opportunistic HIP, DHT resolution interface were initially in the RG Main contributors in RG work for Boeing, Helsinki University of Technology, Ericsson, NEC, Docomo, Vodafone, Siemens

5. HIPRG Statistics Has met on the Friday of every IETF since IETF59, with the exception of IETF67 (is also meeting Friday at IETF68). Meeting attendance has ranged from 40-80 people on these Friday meetings; typically ~40 in recent meetings. Published an IRTF-track document `draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-04.txt'; an informational document on how HIP can traverse legacy NATs and middleboxes (recently completed IESG Evaluation) Handed over three Internet-Drafts to the rechartered HIP WG (NAT traversal, legacy application support, and HIP native API) Reviewed on the order of 2-5 individual draft submissions each meeting

6. Mailing list and website status HIP RG list is low-traffic currently –~150 subscribers –Some discussions moved to HIP WG list and other id-loc split lists such as arch and RAM –Three implementation-specific lists –Project-specific lists have more traffic, recently OpenHIP website and wiki are updating –http://www.openhip.org/irtf/wikihttp://www.openhip.org/irtf/wiki InfraHIP project web site is updating –http://infrahip.hiit.fi

7. HIPRG Agenda at IETF68

8. InfraHIP project concluded Funded 2004-2006 by Ericsson, Nokia, Elisa, Defence Forces in Finland –Ported HIP Linux implementation from kernel to userspace –Updating the implementation according to the latest specs, interoperability testing –BEET IPsec patch accepted to official Linux kernel –Implemented HIP firewall, GUI, NAT traversal, opportunistic HIP, DHT resolution, privacy extensions, lightweight HIP –Significant number of publications, graduate theses

9. Challenge of experiments The chairs observe that the goal of coordinating and conducting experiments, particularly those oriented towards answering deployment questions, is a much more difficult task, compared with extending HIP. To some extent, it may be even harder to conduct experiments with a general-purpose architectural extension like HIP because the costs and benefits may manifest themselves in the long term and may be spread to more places, therefore being harder to quantify and compare disparate metrics.

10. Going forward Since last fall, the HIP RG chairs have encouraged more collaborative experimentation and dissemination of results. To some extent, deployment will be eased by the continually improving HIP software (which is now stabilizing and providing more user-friendly installation and operating environments), but good software is not enough. We view it as a priority for the RG in 2007 to encourage wider-scale experiments and collaboration that try to answer the specific deployment questions. Would like suggestions from IAB for deployment and experiment scenarios, and metrics to consider

11. Infrastructure for HIP II project Funding for HIP experimentation 2007-2009 from Ericsson, Nokia, Secgo, TeliaSonera, Elisa, Finnish Defence Forces Polish existing implementations, and focus less on new protocol extensions –Usability, easy installation and zero-conf More attractive applications, deployment and experimentation –Possible testbed deployments with Internet Tablets, military, China CERNET Collaborate with EU Ambient Networks phase 3 for HIP testbed and experimentation