


IRTF HIP Research Group                                     T. Henderson
Internet-Draft                                        The Boeing Company
Intended status: Informational                                 A. Gurtov
Expires: June 18, 2012                                University of Oulu
                                                       December 16, 2011


                         HIP Experiment Report
                      draft-irtf-hip-experiment-15

Abstract

   This document is a report from the IRTF HIP research group
   documenting the collective experiences and lessons learned from
   studies, related experimentation, and designs completed by the
   research group.  The documents summarizes implications of adding HIP
   to host protocol stacks, Internet infrastructure, and applications.
   The perspective of a network operator, as well as a list of HIP
   experiments, are presented as well.  Portions of this report may be
   relevant also to other network overlay-based architectures or to
   attempts to deploy alternative networking architectures.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.


































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  What is HIP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.3.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.4.  Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Host Stack Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Modifications to TCP/IP stack implementations  . . . . . .  7
       2.1.1.  ESP implementation extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.2.  User-space implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.3.  Issues common to both implementation approaches  . . . . . 10
       2.3.1.  User-space handling of HITs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.3.2.  Opportunistic mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.3.3.  Resolving HITs to addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.3.4.  IPsec management API extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.3.5.  Transport protocol issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.3.6.  Legacy NAT traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       2.3.7.  Local management of host identity namespace  . . . . . 15
       2.3.8.  Interactions with host firewalls . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     2.4.  IPv4 vs. IPv6 issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     2.5.  What have early adopters learned from experience?  . . . . 17
   3.  Infrastructure Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.1.  Impact on DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.2.  HIP aware middleboxes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.3.  HIT resolution infrastructure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.4.  Rendezvous servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     3.5.  Hybrid DNS-DHT resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   4.  Application Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     4.1.  Non-intrusive HIP insertion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     4.2.  Referrals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     4.3.  Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   5.  Network Operator's Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.1.  Management of the host identity namespace  . . . . . . . . 23
     5.2.  Use of ESP encryption  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.3.  Access control lists based on HITs . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.4.  Firewall issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   6.  User Privacy Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   7.  Experimental Basis of this Report  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   8.  Related Work on ID-Locator Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42






Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document summarizes the work and experiences of the Host
   Identity Protocol IRTF Research Group (HIP-RG) from the 2004-2009
   timeframe.  The HIP-RG was chartered to explore the possible benefits
   and consequences of deploying the Host Identity Protocol architecture
   [RFC4423] in the Internet, and to explore extensions to HIP.

   This document was developed over several years as the main charter
   item for the HIP research group, and has received inputs and reviews
   from most of the active research group participants.  There is
   research group consensus to publish it.

1.1.  What is HIP?

   The Host Identity Protocol architecture introduces a new name space,
   the "host identity" name space, to the Internet architecture.  The
   express purpose of this new name space is to allow for the decoupling
   of identifiers (host identities) and locators (IP addresses) at the
   internetworking layer of the architecture.  The contributors to HIP
   have expected that HIP will enable alternative solutions for several
   of the Internet's challenging technical problems, including
   potentially host mobility, host multihoming, site multihoming, IPv6
   transition, NAT traversal, and network-level security.  Although
   there have been many architectural proposals to decouple identifiers
   and locators over the past 20 years, HIP is one of the most actively
   developed proposal in this area.

   The Host Identity Protocol itself provides a rapid exchange of host
   identities (public keys) between hosts and uses a Sigma ("SIGn-and-
   MAc")-compliant Diffie-Hellman key exchange to establish shared
   secrets between such endpoints [RFC5201].  The protocol is designed
   to be resistant to Denial-of-Service (DoS) and Man-in-the-middle
   (MitM) attacks, and when used together with another suitable security
   protocol, such as Encapsulated Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303], it
   provides encryption and/or authentication protection for upper layer
   protocols such as TCP and UDP, while enabling continuity of
   communications across network layer address changes.

   A number of experimental RFC specifications were published by the
   IETF's HIP Working Group, including the HIP base protocol [RFC5201],
   ESP encapsulation [RFC5202], registration extensions [RFC5203], HIP
   rendezvous servers [RFC5204], DNS resource records [RFC5205], and
   mobility management [RFC5206].  Host identities are represented as
   ORCHIDs [RFC4853] in Internet protocols.  Additionally, the research
   group published one RFC on requirements for traversing NATs and
   firewalls [RFC5207] and the working group later published
   specification text for legacy NAT traversal [RFC5770].  As of this



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   writing, work has commenced on moving the above specifications to
   Standards Track status.

1.2.  Terminology

   The terms used in this document are defined elsewhere in various
   documents.  In particular, readers are suggested to review section 3
   of [RFC4423] for a listing of HIP-specific terminology.

1.3.  Scope

   The research group has been tasked with producing an "experiment
   report" documenting the collective experiences and lessons learned
   from other studies, related experimentation, and designs completed by
   the research group.  The question of whether the basic identifier-
   locator split assumption is valid falls beyond the scope of this
   research group.  When indicated by its studies, the HIP RG can
   suggest extensions and modifications to the protocol and
   architecture.  It has also been in scope for the RG to study, in a
   wider sense, what the consequences and effects that wide-scale
   adoption of any type of separation of the identifier and locator
   roles of IP addresses is likely to have.

   During the period of time when the bulk of this report was drafted
   (2004-2009), several research projects and open source software
   projects were formed to study HIP.  These projects have been
   developing software enabling HIP to be interoperable according to the
   experimental RFCs as well as supporting extensions not yet specified
   by RFCs.

   The research group has been most active in two areas.  First and
   foremost, the research group has studied extensions to the HIP
   protocol that went beyond the scope and charter of the IETF HIP
   working group and the set of RFCs (RFC 5201-5206) initially published
   in April 2008.  Some of this work (NAT traversal, certificate formats
   for HIP, legacy application support, and a native sockets API for
   HIP) ultimately flowed into the IETF HIP working group upon its
   recharter in 2008.  Other extensions (e.g.  HIP in the i3 overlay,
   use of distributed hash tables for Host Identity Tag (HIT)-based
   lookups, mobile router extensions, etc.) are either still being
   worked on in the research group or have been abandoned.  Most of the
   energy of the research group during this time period has been in
   studying extensions of HIP protocols or the application of HIP to new
   problem domains (such as the Internet of Things).  Second, the
   research group has discussed the progress and outcome of the
   implementations and experiments conducted so far, as well as
   discussing perspectives from different participants (end users,
   operators, enterprises) on HIP deployment.  It is this latter



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   category of work (and not the extensions to HIP) on which this report
   is focused.

   Finally, the research group was chartered to study, but did not
   rigorously study (due to lack of inputs), the following questions:

   o  Objective comparisons of HIP with other mechanisms (although the
      research group did hold some discussions concerning the relation
      of HIP to other efforts such as the End-Middle-End (EME) research
      group, the Routing research group (RRG) and shim6-based
      protocols).

   o  Large scale deployments (thousands of hosts or greater).

   o  Exploration of whether introducing an identity-locator mechanism
      would be architecturally sound, deployed at wide scale.

   o  Changes to the HIP baseline architecture and protocol, or other
      identity-locator separation architectures.

1.4.  Organization

   In this report, we summarize the collective experience of early
   implementers and adopters of HIP, organized as follows:

   o  Section 2 describes the implications of supporting HIP on an end-
      host.

   o  Section 3 covers a number of issues regarding the deployment of
      and interaction with network infrastructure, including middlebox
      traversal, name resolution, ACLs, and HIP infrastructure such as
      rendezvous servers.

   Whereas the two previous sections focus on the implementation and
   deployment of the network plumbing to make HIP work, the next three
   focus on the impact on users and operators of the network.

   o  Section 4 examines how the support of HIP in the host and network
      infrastructure affects applications; whether and how HIP provides
      benefits or drawbacks to HIP-enabled and legacy applications.

   o  Section 5 provides an operator's perspective on HIP deployment.

   o  Section 6 discusses user privacy issues.

   In closing, in Section 7, we list the experimental activities and
   research that have contributed to this report, and in Section 8 we
   briefly summarize related work.



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


2.  Host Stack Implications

   HIP is primarily an extension to the TCP/IP stack of Internet hosts,
   and, in this section, we summarize some experiences that several
   implementation groups have encountered in developing this extension.
   Our discussion here draws on experience of implementers in adding HIP
   to general-purpose computing platforms such as laptops, desktops,
   servers, and PDAs.  There are two primary ways to support HIP on such
   an end host.  The first is to make changes to the kernel
   implementation to directly support the decoupling of identifier and
   locator.  Although this type of modification has data throughput
   performance benefits, it is also the more challenging to deploy.  The
   second approach is to implement all HIP processing in user-space, and
   configure the kernel to route packets through user-space for HIP
   processing.

   The following public HIP implementations are known and actively
   maintained:

   o  HIP4BSD (http://www.hip4inter.net)-- FreeBSD kernel modifications
      and user-space keying daemon;

   o  HIPL (http://hipl.hiit.fi)-- Linux kernel and user-space
      implementation;

   o  OpenHIP (http://www.openhip.org)-- User-space keying daemon and
      packet processing for Linux, Windows XP/Vista/7, and Apple OS X.

   In the following, we first describe issues specific to the way in
   which HIP is added to a stack, then we discuss general issues
   surrounding both implementation approaches.

2.1.  Modifications to TCP/IP stack implementations

   In this section, we focus on the support of HIP assuming the
   following:

   o  HIP is implemented by directly changing the TCP/IP stack
      implementation

   o  Applications (using the sockets API) are unaware of HIP

   A HIP implementation typically consists of a key management process
   that coordinates with an IPsec-extended stack, as shown in Figure 1.
   In practice, HIP has been implemented entirely in user-space,
   entirely in the kernel, or as a hybrid with a user-space key
   management process and a kernel-level ESP.




Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


    +--------------------+                       +--------------------+
    |                    |
    |                    |
    |   +------------+   |                       |   +------------+   |
    |   |    Key     |   |         HIP           |   |    Key     |   |
    |   | Management | <-+-----------------------+-> | Management |   |
    |   |  Process   |   |                       |   |  Process   |   |
    |   +------------+   |                       |   +------------+   |
    |         ^          |                       |         ^          |
    |         |          |                       |         |          |
    |         v          |                       |         v          |
    |   +------------+   |                       |   +------------+   |
    |   |   IPsec-   |   |        ESP            |   |   IPsec-   |   |
    |   |  extended  |   |                       |   |  extended  |   |
    |   |   Stack    | <-+-----------------------+-> |   Stack    |   |
    |   |            |   |                       |   |            |   |
    |   +------------+   |                       |   +------------+   |
    |                    |                       |                    |
    |                    |                       |                    |
    |     Initiator      |                       |     Responder      |
    +--------------------+                       +--------------------+

                      Figure 1: HIP deployment model

   Figure 2 summarizes the main implementation impact of supporting HIP,
   and is discussed further in subsequent sections.  To enable HIP
   natively in an implementation requires extensions to the key
   management interface (here depicted as PF_KEY API [RFC2367]) with the
   security association database (SAD) and security policy database
   (SPD).  It also requires changes to the ESP implementation itself to
   support Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET)-mode processing
   [I-D.nikander-esp-beet-mode], extensions to the name resolution
   library, and (in the future) interactions with transport protocols to
   respond correctly to mobility and multihoming events
   [I-D.schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci].
















Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


                  |-----------------------|
    --------      |   ----------     ----------
    | HIP  |--    ----|  App v6 |    |  App v4 |
    -------- |    |   ----------     ----------
      |      |    |       | HIT           | LSI
      |    ------------   | AF_INET6      | AF_INET
      |    | resolver |   |               |
      |    ------------   |  sockets API  |        user-space
    --|-------------------|-------------------------------
      | sockets and       |               |        kernel
      | PF_KEY API    ---------           |
      |-------------> |TCP/UDP|<-----------
      |               ---------
      |                   |
    ----------        ---------
    | SAD/SPD|<-----> | ESP   |  {HIT_s, HIT_d} <-> SPI
    ----------        ---------  {HIT_s, HIT_d, SPI} <-> {IP_s,IP_d,SPI}
                          |
                      ---------
                      |  IP   |
                      ---------

    Figure 2: Overview of typical implementation changes to support HIP

   Legacy applications can continue to use the standard AF_INET6 (for
   IPv6) and AF_INET (for IPv4) socket API.  IPv6 applications bind
   directly to a Host Identity Tag (HIT), which is a part of IPv6
   address space reserved for ORCHIDs.  IPv4 applications bind to a
   Local Scope Identifier (LSI) that has significance only within a
   host; the HIP layer translates from LSIs and HITs to the IP addresses
   that are still used underneath for HIP base exchange.

2.1.1.  ESP implementation extensions

   HIP uses a Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET) mode of ESP operation,
   which mixes tunnel-mode semantics with transport-mode syntax.  BEET
   is not supported by all operating system distributions at present, so
   kernel modifications might be needed to obtain true kernel support
   using existing IPsec code.  At the time of writing, the BEET mode has
   been adopted to vanilla Linux and FreeBSD kernels.

   The HIPL project has contributed an IPsec BEET patch for the Linux
   kernel.  The kernel-level support could potentially allow all Linux
   implementations of HIP to run in the userspace and use a common
   interface towards the kernel.

   One inconvenience experienced in current Linux IPsec implementation
   (due to the native IPsec implementation, not HIP specifically) is a



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   loss of the first data packet that triggers the HIP association
   establishment.  Instead, this packet should be cached and transmitted
   after the association is established.

2.2.  User-space implementations

   HIP can be implemented entirely in user-space, an approach that is
   essential for supporting HIP on hosts for which operating system
   modifications are not possible.  Even on modifiable operating
   systems, there is often a significant deployment advantage in
   deploying HIP only as a user-space implementation.  All three open-
   source implementations provide user-space implementations and binary
   packages (RPMs, DEBs, self-extracting installers) typical of
   application deployment on the target systems.

   When HIP is deployed in user-space, some technique is necessary to
   identify packets that require HIP processing and divert them to user-
   space for such processing, and to re-inject them into the stack for
   further transport protocol processing.  A commonly used technique is
   to deploy a virtual device in the kernel such as a network tap (TAP)
   device, although operating systems may provide other means for
   diverting packets to user-space.  Routing or packet filtering rules
   must be applied to divert the right packets to these devices.

   As an example, the user-space implementation may install a route that
   directs all packets with destination addresses corresponding to HITs
   or LSIs to such a virtual device.  In the user-space daemon, the ESP
   header and possibly UDP header is applied, an outer IP address
   replaces the HIT, and the packet is resent to the kernel.  In the
   reverse direction, a socket associated to ESP or a UDP port number
   may be used to receive ESP-protected packets.  HIP signaling packets
   themselves may be sent and received by a raw socket bound to the HIP
   protocol number or UDP port when UDP encapsulation is used.

2.3.  Issues common to both implementation approaches

2.3.1.  User-space handling of HITs

   Much initial experimentation with HIP has involved using HITs
   directly in IPv6 socket calls, without any resolution infrastructure
   to learn the HIT based on, for example, a domain name, or to resolve
   the IP address.  To experiment with HIP using HITs requires a priori
   HIT exchange, in the absence of a resolution service.  Manual
   exchange of HITs has been a major inconvenience for experimentation.
   It can be overcome via 1) opportunistic HIP mode (RFC5201, Section
   4.1.6), 2) storing HITs in DNS AAAA entries and looking them up by
   domain name, 3) name resolution service for HITs such as OpenDHT
   [I-D.irtf-hiprg-dht], 4) an ad-hoc HIT exchange service to populate



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   files on each machine, or 5) support for DNS extensions described in
   RFC 5205.

   Over time, support for these techniques has varied.  The HIPL project
   has experimented with all of them.  OpenHIP lacks support for option
   2), and HIP4BSD lacks support for options 1) and 3).

   Implementing opportunistic HIP mode in a clean way is challenging, as
   HITs need to be known when an application binds or connects to a
   socket.  Approach 2) has been difficult in practice due to resistance
   of sysadmins to include AAAA entries for HITs in the DNS server, and
   is a non-standards-compliant use of the resource record.  Approach 3)
   is being progressed with two independent implementations of a HIP-
   OpenDHT interface.  At the moment, the easiest way for enabling
   experimentation appears to be the approach 4) when a shell script
   based on SSH and SCP can connect to a peer machine and copy HITs to
   the local configuration files.  However, this approach is not
   scalable or secure for the long run.  HIPL developers have had
   positive experiences with alternative 5).

2.3.2.  Opportunistic mode

   In opportunistic mode, the Initiator starts a base exchange without
   knowledge of the Responder's HIT.  The main advantage of the
   opportunistic mode is that it does not require additional look-up
   infrastructure for HIs [RFC5205], [I-D.irtf-hiprg-dht].

   The opportunistic mode has also a few disadvantages.  Firstly, the
   Initiator may not identify the Responder uniquely just based on the
   IP address in the presence of private address realms [RFC5770].
   Secondly, the Initiator has to settle for a "leap of faith"; that is,
   assume there is no man in the middle attack.  However, this can be
   partially mitigated by using certificates at the Responder side
   [RFC6253], or by prompting the user using a graphical interface to
   explicitly accept the connection [paper.usable-security].

   The opportunistic mode requires only minor changes in the state
   machine of the Responder and small changes for the Initiator
   [paper.opp].  While the Responder can just select a suitable HIT upon
   receiving the first HIP base exchange packet (known as an "I1")
   without a predefined HIT for the Responder, the Initiator should be
   more careful in processing the first packet from the responder, known
   as the "R1".  For example, the Initiator should make sure that it can
   disambiguate simultaneously initiated opportunistic base exchanges
   from each other.

   In the context of the HIPL project, the opportunistic mode has been
   successfully applied at the HIP layer for service registration



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   [RFC5203].  HIP4BSD implemented opportunistic mode successfully with
   small modifications to the FreeBSD socket layer to support
   opportunistic mode.  However, the Linux implementation was more
   challenging as described below.

   The HIPL project experimented with opportunistic mode by interposing
   a shim at two different layers.  In the first approach, an API-based
   shim was implemented to capture socket calls from the application.
   This was somewhat complicated to implement and required to explicitly
   enable an individual application (or groups of applications) to use
   the opportunistic mode.  In the second approach
   [paper.leap-of-faith], the shim was placed between the network and
   transport layers.  Upon successful base exchange, the shim translated
   IP-based packet flows to HIT-based packet flows by reinjecting the
   translated packets back to the networking stack.

   Unless separately disabled, both of the opportunistic mode
   implementation approaches in HIPL subjected the application(s) to
   undergo opportunistic mode procedures also for DNS requests.  Both
   approaches also implemented an optional "fall back" to non-HIP base
   connectivity if the peer did not support HIP.  The detection of peer
   support for HIP was based on timeouts.  To avoid timeouts completely
   and to reduce the delay to a single round-trip time for TCP, the
   project experimented also with TCP-specific extensions
   [thesis.bishaj].

   The OpenHIP project experimented with opportunistic mode through the
   use of an opportunistic (-o) option.  For the responder, this option
   determines whether or not HIP accepts I1s received with a zeroed
   receiver's HIT.  On the initiator's side, this option allows one to
   configure a name and LSI in the known Host Identities file.  When the
   HIT field is missing, an I1 is sent with a zeroed receiver's HIT.
   The LSI is needed by an IPv4 application to trigger the association.
   Note that normally the LSI used is based on the bottom 24 bits of the
   HIT, but in the case of opportunistic mode, the HIT is unknown; thus
   the LSI may differ from the HIT.

   As a summary of the opportunistic mode experimentation, it is
   possibly best suited for HIP-aware applications.  Either it can be
   used by HIP itself in registration extensions or by native HIP
   applications [RFC6317].  This way, the inherent security trade-offs
   of the opportunistic are explicitly visible to the user through the
   HIP-aware application.

2.3.3.  Resolving HITs to addresses

   When HIP is used in opportunistic mode, the initiator does not know
   the responder's HIT but does know its IP address.  In most other



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   cases, however, the kernel or applications may know the HITs and not
   the IP addresses; in this case, an IP address resolution step for
   HITs must take place.

   A few techniques have been experimented with.  First, OpenDHT can
   also use HITs as keys for IP address records.  Second, work by
   Ponomarev has shown that the reverse DNS tree may be used for reverse
   lookups of the ORCHID space [I-D.ponomarev-hip-hit2ip].  Third, the
   need for resolution may trigger some type of HIP bootstrap message,
   similar in some sense to an ARP message (to resolve the HIT).  The
   BOS packet used to be present in the early revisions of the HIP base
   specifications, but was removed from the final specifications due to
   insufficient interest at the time.  The HIPL implementation currently
   sends an I1 to a link broadcast IP address if it doesn't know the IP
   address of the peer.  It has triggered warnings in some Windows hosts
   running antivirus software, that classified broadcasts with unknown
   protocol number as intrusion attempts.  The utility of this technique
   is limited to the local link.

2.3.4.  IPsec management API extensions

   A generic key management API for IP security is known as PF_KEY API
   [RFC2367].  PK_KEY is a socket protocol family that can be used by
   trusted applications to access the IPsec key engine in the operating
   system.  Users of this interface typically need sysadmin privileges.

   HIP-related extensions to the PF_KEY interface define a new protocol
   IPPROTO_HIP.  Their main functionality is replacing TCP and UDP
   checksum with a HIP-compatible checksum (because the transport
   pseudoheader is based on HITs) in incoming and outgoing packets.
   Recent Linux kernel versions do not require patching for these
   extensions.

2.3.5.  Transport protocol issues

   When an application triggers a HIP base exchange through the
   transport protocol, the first data packet can be lost unless the HIP
   and IPsec implementation is able to buffer the packet until the base
   exchange completes and IPsec SAs are set up.  The loss of the data
   packet, when it is a TCP SYN packet, results into TCP timeout
   [RFC2988] that unnecessarily delays the application.  A loss of a UDP
   packet can cause even longer timeouts in applications.  Therefore, it
   was found to be important for HIP implementations to support the
   buffering of the packet.  On the other hand, if the HIP base exchange
   or UPDATE takes longer than 1 second, which is the case on
   lightweight devices, a spurious timeout can occur at the transport
   layer.  The HIP implementation could prevent this scenario by
   manipulating timeout values at the transport layer or, alternatively,



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   drop the original or retransmitted duplicate packet.

   The multihoming support in [RFC5206] is intended for the purpose of
   failover, when a host starts using an alternative locator when a
   current locator fails.  However, a host could used this multihoming
   support for load balancing across different locators.  Multihoming in
   this manner could potentially cause issues with transport protocol
   congestion control and loss detection mechanisms.  However, no
   experimental results from using HIP multihoming in this capacity have
   been reported.

   The use of paths with different characteristics can also impact the
   estimate of a retransmission timer at the sender's transport layer.
   TCP uses a smoothed average of the path's Round Trip Time and its
   variation as the estimate for a retransmission timeout.  After the
   retransmission timer expires, the sender retransmits all outstanding
   packets in go-back-N fashion.

   When multihoming is used for simultaneous data transmission from
   several locators, there can easily be scenarios when the
   retransmission timeout does not correspond to the actual value.  When
   packets simply experience different RTT, its variation is high, which
   sets the retransmission timeout value unnecessarily high.  When
   packets are lost, the sender waits excessively long before
   retransmitting.  Fortunately, modern TCP implementations deploying
   Selective Acknowledgments (SACK) and Limited Transmit are not relying
   on retransmission timeouts except when most outstanding packets are
   lost.

   Load balancing among several paths requires some estimate of each
   path's capacity.  The TCP congestion control algorithm assumes that
   all packets flow along the same path.  To perform load balancing, the
   HIP layer can attempt to estimate parameters such as delay,
   bandwidth, and loss rate of each path.  A HIP scheduler could then
   distribute packets among the paths according to their capacity and
   delay, to maximize overall utilization and minimize reordering.  The
   design of the scheduler is a topic of current research work; none are
   reported to exist.  Different network paths can have different
   Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) sizes.  Transport protocols perform
   MTU discovery typically only in the beginning of a connection.  As
   HIP hides mobility from the transport layer, it can happen that
   packets on the new path get fragmented without knowledge of the
   transport protocol.  To solve this problem, the HIP layer could
   inform the transport layer of mobility events.  Protocols to support
   such notifications to the transport layer have been proposed to the
   IETF in the past, including transport triggers
   [I-D.dawkins-trigtran-framework], lightweight mobility detection and
   response (LMDR) [I-D.swami-tcp-lmdr], and TCP response to



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   connectivity change [I-D.schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci].

2.3.6.  Legacy NAT traversal

   Legacy NAT traversal for outbound-initiated connections to a publicly
   addressed responder has been implemented by all three HIP
   implementations; two (HIPL and HIP4BSD) implement ICE techniques
   [RFC5770] for inbound NAT traversal.  It has also been reported that
   the use of Teredo [RFC4380] over HIP was simpler than the
   modifications required for ICE techniques because Teredo effectively
   manifests itself as a routable, virtual locator to system.  UDP
   encapsulation is now the default mode of HIP operation for OpenHIP's
   IPv4 HIP implementation.  Finding an IPv6 NAT implementation for
   experiments has been difficult.  In addition, the initial
   implementations of NAT traversal for HIP based on ICE techniques
   proved to be complicated to implement or integrate, and a native NAT
   traversal mode is now under development for HIP
   [I-D.ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal].  NAT traversal is expected to be
   a major mode of HIP operation in the future.

2.3.7.  Local management of host identity namespace

   One issue not being addressed by some experimental implementations is
   how to perform source HIT selection across possibly multiple host
   identities (some may be unpublished).  This is akin to source address
   selection for transport sockets.  How much HIP policy to expose to
   users is a user interface issue.  Default or automatic configuration
   guesses might have undesirable privacy implications for the user.

   Helsinki University of Technology (TKK, now Aalto) has implemented an
   extension of the native HIP API to control multiple host identities
   [thesis.karlsson].  A problem with Linux routing and multiple
   identities was discovered by the HIPL development group.  As Linux
   routing is based on longest prefix match, having multiple HITs on
   virtual devices was problematic from the view point of access control
   because the stack selects the source HIT based on the destination
   HIT.  A coarse-grained solution for this is to terminate the longest-
   prefix match for ORCHIDs in the Linux networking statck.  However, a
   more fine-grained solution tries to return a source HIT matching to
   the algorithm used for generating the destination HIT in order to
   facilitate compatibility with new algorithms standardized in the
   future.

   There are security and privacy issues with storing private keys
   securely on a host.  Current implementations simply store private
   keys in a file that is readable only by applications with root
   privileges.  This may not be a sufficient level of protection, as
   keys could be read directly from the disk or e.g. some application



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   with set-user-id flag.  Keys may be stored on a trusted platform
   module (TPM) but there are no reported HIP experiments with such a
   configuration.  In a Boeing pilot project, temporary certificates
   were generated from a key on a USB SIM chip and used in the HIP base
   exchange.  Use of certificates in HIP requires extensions to the HIP
   specifications [RFC6253].  Another option is encrypting keys on disks
   and keeping a passkey in memory (like in SSL certificates on servers,
   that ask for a password when booting Linux).

2.3.8.  Interactions with host firewalls

   HIP is presently an experimental protocol, and some default firewall
   configuration scripts on popular Linux distributions do not permit
   the HIP protocol number.  Determining which rules to modify without
   compromising other policies can be tricky; the default rule set on a
   previous SuSE Linux distribution was discovered to contain over one
   hundred rules.  Moreover, it may be the case that the end user has no
   control over the firewall settings, if administered by an enterprise
   IT department.  However, the use of HIP over UDP has alleviated some
   of these concerns.  When using HIP over UDP, the firewall needs to
   allow outbound UDP packets and responses to them.

2.4.  IPv4 vs. IPv6 issues

   HIP has been oriented towards IPv6 deployment, but all
   implementations have also added support for IPv4.  HIP supports IPv6
   applications well, as the HITs are used from the general IPv6 address
   space using the ORCHID prefix.  HITs are statistically unique,
   although are not routable at the IP layer.  Therefore a mapping
   between HITs and routable IP addresses is necessary at the HIP layer,
   unless an overlay network or broadcast techniques are available to
   route packets based on HITs.

   For IPv4 applications, a 32-bit Local Scope Identifier (LSI) is
   necessary at the sockets API.  The LSI is an alias for a host
   identity and is only meaningful within one host.  Note that an IPv4
   address may be used as an LSI if it is configured to refer to a
   particular host identity on a given host, or LSIs may be drawn from
   an unallocated IPv4 address range, but lack of coordination on the
   LSI space may hinder implementation portability.

   HIP makes it possible to use IPv6 applications over the IPv4 network
   and vice versa.  This has been called interfamily operation
   (flexibility between different address families) and is enabled by
   the fact that the transport pseudoheader is always based on HITs
   regardless of whether the application or the underlying network path
   is based on IPv4.  All three open source HIP implementations have
   demonstrated some form of interfamily handoff support.  The



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   interfamily portion of the BEET patch in the Linux kernel was found
   more difficult to complete compared with the single-family
   processing.

   HIP also provides the potential to perform cross-family support,
   whereby one side of a transport session is IPv6-based, and another is
   IPv4-based [paper.handovers].

2.5.  What have early adopters learned from experience?

   Implementing HIP in current stacks or as overlays on unmodified
   stacks has generally been successful.  Below are some caveats and
   open issues.

   Experimental results comparing kernel vs. userspace HIP
   implementations in terms of performance and DoS resilience would be
   useful.  If the kernel implementation is shown to perform
   significantly better than the userspace implementation, it may be a
   sufficient justification to incorporate HIP within the kernel.
   However, experiences on general purpose laptops and servers suggests
   that for typical client use of HIP, user-space implementations
   perform adequately.

   Although the HIPL kernel-based keying implementation was submitted to
   the Linux kernel development process, the implementation was not
   accepted.  The kernel developers felt that since MIP and IKE are
   implemented as user-space signaling daemons in Linux, that should be
   the approach for HIP too.  Furthermore, the kernel-patch was somewhat
   big, affecting the kernel in many places and having several
   databases.  The Linux kernel maintainers did eventually accept the
   BEET patch.

   Some users have been explicitly asking about co-existence of HIP with
   other VPN and Mobile IP software.  E.g., on Windows those tend to
   install their own versions of TAP drivers which might conflict with
   the driver used by the OpenHIP implementation.  There may also be
   issues due to lack of coordination leading to unintended HIP-over-VPN
   sessions, or lack of coordination of the ESP SPI space.  However,
   these types of conflicts are only speculation and were not reported
   to the research group; only some positive reports of HIP and VPN
   software properly coexisting have been reported by the HIPL group.

   With legacy applications, LSI support is important because IPv6 is
   not widely used in applications.  The main issues in getting
   applications to work well over HIP have been related to bugs in the
   implementations themselves, or latency related issues (such as TCP
   timeouts due to Linux IPsec implementation).  There have been no
   major obstacles encountered in practice, and there has been some



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   experience also in using HIP with native applications [paper.p2psip].


















































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


3.  Infrastructure Implications

   This section focuses on the deployment of infrastructure to support
   HIP hosts.

3.1.  Impact on DNS

   HIP DNS extensions [RFC5205] were developed by NEC Eurolabs and
   contributed to OpenHIP, and were also developed by the HIPL project,
   both for the BIND9 DNS server.  Legacy applications do not query for
   HIP resource records, but DNS proxies (local resolvers) interpose
   themselves in the resolution path and can query for HI records.  The
   DNS proxy for HIPL uses binary blob format to store the HIP resource
   records; this means that no changes to the DNS server are required.

   There have been no studies reported on the impact of RFC 5205 changes
   to HIP on the existing DNS.  There have been some studies on using
   DNS to store HITs in the reverse tree [I-D.ponomarev-hip-hit2ip].

3.2.  HIP aware middleboxes

   A design of a HIP registration protocol for architectured NATs (NATs
   that are HIP aware and use HIP identifiers to distinguish between
   hosts) has been completed and published as RFC 5204.  Performance
   measurement results with a prototype are available, but
   experimentation on a wide scale is still missing.  RFC 5207 provides
   a problem statement for HIP-aware NATs and middleboxes [RFC5207].

   As argued by Aura et al. [paper.hipanalysis], the encryption of the
   Initiator Host Identity (HI) prevents policy-based NAT and firewall
   support, and middlebox authentication, for HIP.  The catch is that
   when the HI is encrypted, middleboxes in the network cannot verify
   the signature of the second base exchange packet from the initiator
   (I2) and, thus, cannot safely create a state for the HIP association.
   On the other hand, if the HI is not encrypted, a stateful middlebox
   can process the I2 and create protocol state for the session.

3.3.  HIT resolution infrastructure

   OpenDHT HIT-to-IP address resolution has been implemented by Aalborg
   University, Denmark, Helsinki Institute for Information Technology
   for HIPL, and by Boeing for OpenHIP [I-D.irtf-hiprg-dht].

   The prototype of the Host Identity Indirection Infrastructure (Hi3)
   has been implemented using OpenHIP and HIPL.  A set of 25 i3 servers
   was running on PlanetLab for several years.  While a PlanetLab
   account is required to run the servers, anybody could openly use the
   provided service.



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   The main idea of Hi3 is to transmit HIP control packets using the i3
   system as a lookup and rendezvous service, while transmitting data
   packets efficiently end-to-end using IPsec.  Performance measurements
   were conducted comparing the association setup latency, throughput,
   and RTT of Hi3 with plain IP, HIP and i3 [paper.hi3]

   One difficulty has been with debugging the i3 system.  In some cases
   the messages did not traverse i3 correctly; due to its distributed
   nature and lack of tracing tools, making the system work has been
   challenging.  Further, since the original research work was done, the
   i3 servers have gone offline.

   NATs and firewalls have been a major disturbance in Hi3 experiments.
   Many networks did not allow incoming UDP packets to go through,
   therefore, preventing messages from i3 servers to reach the client.

   So far the Hi3 system has been evaluated on a larger scale only
   analytically.  The problem is that running a larger number of clients
   to create a sufficient load for the server is difficult.  A cluster
   on the order of a hundred Linux servers is needed for this purpose.
   Contacts to a State Supercomputer Centre in Finland have not been
   successful so far.  A possible opportunity is to use one of existing
   Emulab installations, e.g. in Utah for these tests.

3.4.  Rendezvous servers

   A rendezvous server (RVS) [RFC5204] has been implemented by HIIT for
   HIPL, and an implementation also exists for OpenHIP.  The concept has
   been extended to a relay server in [RFC5770].  Initial
   experimentation with the HIPL implementation produced the following
   observations.

   o  RVS may be better than dynamic DNS updates for hosts that change
      their address rapidly.

   o  Registration of a HIP host to RVS costs a base exchange.

   o  Sending of UPDATE and CLOSE packets through rendezvous servers is
      advised; RVS handling of UPDATE messages can typically solve the
      double jump [I-D.huitema-multi-homed] mobility problem.

   The following advanced concepts need further study.

   o  Multiple RVS per host for fault tolerance (e.g. one rendezvous
      node crashes), and an algorithm for selecting the best RVS.

   o  Load balancing.  A RVS server could distribute I1s to different
      responders if the responder's identity is shared or opportunistic



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


      HIP is used.

   o  Offering a rendezvous service in a P2P fashion by HIP hosts.

3.5.  Hybrid DNS-DHT resolution

   In addition to pure DNS and pure DHT HIP name resolution, a hybrid
   approach combining standard DNS interface for clients with last-hop
   DHT resolution was developed.  The idea is that the benefits of DNS
   solution (wide deployment, support for legacy applications) could be
   combined with advantages of DHT (fault tolerance, efficiency in
   handling flat data keys).  The DHT is typically run internally by the
   organization managing the last-hop DNS zone and the DNS server.  That
   way, the HITs belonging to that organization could be stored locally
   by the organization that improves deployability of the resolution
   system.  However, organizations could also share a DHT between
   themselves, or connect their DNS servers to a publicly available DHT,
   such as OpenDHT.  The benefit of running a DHT on a local server
   cluster compared to a geographically spread DHT is also higher
   performance due to decreased internal DHT latencies.

   The system was prototyped by modifying the BIND DNS server to
   redirect the queries for HITs to a DHT server.  The interface was
   implemented in XML according to specifications [I-D.irtf-hiprg-dht].
   The system is completely backward compatible to legacy applications
   since the standard DNS resolver interface is used.

   Performance of the system was evaluated by performing a rapid
   sequence of requests for querying and updating the HIT to IP address
   mapping.  The request rate was varied from 1 to 200 requests per
   second.  The average latency of one query request was less than 50 ms
   and the secured updated latency less than 100 ms with a low request
   rate.  However, the delay was increasing exponentially with the
   request rate, reaching 1 sec for 200 requests per second (update rate
   0) and almost 2 sec (update rate 0.5).  Furthermore, the maximum
   delay exceeded the mean by several times.

   Based on experiments, a multi-processor system could handle more than
   1000 queries per second.  The latencies are dominated by the DHT
   resolution delay, and the DNS component is rather small.  This is
   explained by the relative inefficiency of used DHT implementation
   (Bamboo) and could be definitely improved in future.









Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


4.  Application Implications

   In a deployed HIP environment, applications may be HIP-aware or HIP-
   unaware.  RFC5338 [RFC5338] describes various techniques to allow HIP
   to support unmodified applications.  Below are listed some additional
   application considerations.

4.1.  Non-intrusive HIP insertion

   One way to support legacy applications that use dynamic linking is to
   dynamically interpose a modified resolver library.  Using HIPL,
   several legacy applications were shown to work without changes using
   dynamic re-linking of the resolver library.  For example, Firefox web
   browser successfully worked with an Apache web server.  The re-
   linking just requires configuring a LD_PRELOAD system variable that
   can be performed in a user shell profile file or as a start-up
   wrapper for an application.  This provides the user with fine-grained
   policy control over which applications use HIP, which could
   alternately be considered a benefit or a drawback depending on
   whether the user is burdened with such policy choices.  The technique
   was also found to be sensitive to loading LD_PRELOAD twice, in which
   case the order of linking dynamic libraries must be coded carefully.

   Another method for transparently using HIP, which has no reported
   implementation experience, is via local application proxies (e.g.
   squid web proxy) that are modified to be HIP-aware.  Discussion of
   proxies for HIP is a current focus of research group activities
   [I-D.irtf-hiprg-proxies].

4.2.  Referrals

   A concern that FTP would not work due to the problem of application
   referrals, i.e. passing the IP address within application messages,
   was discovered not to be a problem for FTP in practice.  It is shown
   to work well both in the passive and active modes [paper.namespace].
   It remains an open question how big problem referrals really are in
   the practice.  At least, they do not seem used for the client side
   because they are behind NATs, and, therefore, client addresses are
   unsuitable as referrals.

4.3.  Latency

   Some applications may be sensitive to additional RTTs or processing
   due to HIP resolutions or the protocol itself.  For instance, page
   load speed for web browsers is a critical metric for browser
   designers.  Some applications or deployments may not wish to trade
   application speed for the security and mobility management that HIP
   offers.



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


5.  Network Operator's Perspective

   There is no known deployment of HIP by a data service provider.
   However, some issues regarding HIP have been brought to the HIP
   research group by a network provider and are summarized below and in
   [I-D.dietz-hip-operator-issues].

5.1.  Management of the host identity namespace

   When a network operator deploys HIP for its customers, several issues
   with management of host identities arise.  The operator may prefer to
   generate the host identity itself rather than let each host create
   the identities.  Several factors can create such a need.  Public-
   private key generation is a demanding operation that can take tens of
   seconds on a lightweight device, such as a mobile phone.  After
   generating a host identity, the operator can immediately insert it
   into its own AAA databases and network firewalls.  This way, the
   users would not need to be concerned with technical details of host
   identity management.

   The operator may use a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to certify
   host identities of its customers.  Then, it uses the private key of
   operator's Certificate Authority (CA) to sign the public key of its
   customers.  This way, third parties possessing the public key of the
   CA can verify the customer's host identity and use this information
   e.g. for admission control to infrastructure.  Such practice raises
   the security level of HIP when self-generated host identities are
   used.

   When the operator is using neither PKI nor DNSSEC host names, the
   problem of securely exchanging host identities remains.  When HIP is
   used in opportunistic mode, a man-in-the-middle can still intercept
   the exchange and replace the host identities with its own.  For
   instance, the signaling provided by the SIP protocol could be used to
   deliver host identities if it were secured by existing mechanisms in
   operator's network.

5.2.  Use of ESP encryption

   The research group has discussed whether operators can provide
   "value-added" services and priority, and comply with wiretapping
   laws, if all sessions are encrypted.  This is not so much a HIP issue
   as a general end-to-end encryption issue.

   The processing power of mobile devices also must be considered.  One
   study evaluated the use of HIP and ESP on lightweight devices (Nokia
   N770 Internet Tablets having 200 MHz processors) [paper.mobiarch].
   The overhead of using ESP on such platform was found to be tolerable,



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   about 30% in terms of throughput.  With a bulk TCP transfer over
   WiFi, transfer without HIP was producing 4.86 Mbps, while over ESP
   security associations set up by HIP it was 3.27 Mbps.  A lightweight
   HIP base exchange for this purpose is being developed at the time of
   this writing [I-D.moskowitz-hip-rg-dex].

   It is also possible to use HIP in a NULL encryption configuration if
   one of SHA1 or MD5 authentication are used.

5.3.  Access control lists based on HITs

   A firewall typically separates an organization's network from the
   rest of the Internet.  An Access Control List (ACL) specifies packet
   forwarding policies in the firewall.  Current firewalls can filter
   out packets based on IP addresses, transport protocol, and port
   values.  These values are often unprotected in data packets and can
   be spoofed by an attacker.  By trying out common well-known ports and
   a range of IP addresses, an attacker can often penetrate the firewall
   defenses.

   Furthermore, legacy firewalls often disallow IPsec traffic and drop
   HIP control packets.  HIP allows ACLs to be protected based on packet
   exchanges that may be authenticated by middleboxes.  However, HITs
   are not aggregatable, so HIT-based ACLs may be longer in length (due
   to inability to group hosts with a single entry) and harder to deal
   with by human users (due to the length of the HIT compared with an
   IPv4 or IPv6 prefix)).

   Additionally, operators would like to grant access to the clients
   from domains such as example.com regardless of their current locators
   or HITs.  This is difficult without a forward confirmed reverse DNS
   to use for non-repudiation purposes.

5.4.  Firewall issues

   Helsinki University of Technology (TKK, now Aalto) has implemented a
   HIP firewall based on Linux iptables [thesis.vehmersalo] which
   operates in userspace.

   In general, firewalls can be stateless, filtering packets based only
   on the ACL, and stateful, which can follow and remember packet flows.
   Stateless firewalls are simple to implement but provide only coarse-
   grained protection.  However, their performance can be efficient
   since packet processing requires little memory or CPU resources.  A
   stateful firewall determines if a packet belongs to an existing flow
   or starts a new flow.  A flow identifier combines information from
   several protocol headers to classify packets.  A firewall removes the
   state when the flow terminates (e.g., a TCP connection is closed) or



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   after a timeout.  A firewall can drop suspicious packets that fail a
   checksum or contain sequence numbers outside of the current sliding
   window.

   A transparent firewall does not require that hosts within the
   protected network register or even know of the existence of the
   firewall.  An explicit firewall requires registration and
   authentication of the hosts.

   A HIP-aware firewall operating in the middle identifies flows using
   HITs of communicating hosts, as well as SPI values and IP addresses.
   The firewall must link together the HIP base exchange and subsequent
   IPsec ESP data packets.  During the base exchange, the firewall
   learns the SPI values from I2 and R2 packets.  Then, the firewall
   only allows ESP packets with a known SPI value and arriving from the
   same IP address as during the base exchange.  If the host changes its
   location and the IP address, the firewall, if still on the path,
   learns about the changes by following the mobility update packets.

   It is possible to implement a stateless, end-host-based firewall to
   reuse existing higher-layer mechanisms such as access control lists
   in the system.  In this mode of operation, HITs would be used in the
   access control lists, and while the base exchange might complete, ESP
   is not passed to the transport layer unless the HITs are allowed in
   the access control list.

   A HIP host can register to an explicit firewall using the usual
   procedure [RFC5203].  The registration enables the host and the
   firewall to authenticate each other.  In a common case, where the
   Initiator and Responder hosts are located behind different firewalls,
   the Initiator may need to first register with its own firewall, and
   afterward, with the Responder's firewall.

   Some researchers have suggested that a firewall for security-critical
   environments should get involved in the base exchange and UPDATE
   procedures with middlebox-injected echo requests.  Otherwise, the
   firewall can be circumvented with replay attacks if there is a
   compromised node within the network that the firewall is trying to
   protect [I-D.heer-hip-middle-auth].












Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


6.  User Privacy Issues

   Using public keys for identifying hosts creates a privacy problem as
   third parties can determine the source host even if attached to a
   different location in the network.  Various transactions of the host
   could be linked together if the host uses the same public key.
   Furthermore, using a static IP address also allows linking of
   transactions of the host.  Multiplexing multiple hosts behind a
   single NAT or using short address leases from DHCP can reduce the
   problem of user tracking.  However, IPv6 addresses could reduce the
   occurrence of NAT translation and cause additional privacy issues
   related to the use of MAC addresses in IPv6 address
   autoconfiguration.  HIP does provide for the use of anonymous
   (unpublished) HITs in cases in which the initiator prefers to remain
   anonymous, but the responder must be willing to accept sessions from
   anonymous peers.

   With mutual authentication, the HIP initiator should not have to
   reveal its identity (public key) to either a passive adversary or an
   active attacker.  The HIP initiator can authenticate the responder's
   R1 packet before encrypting its host identity with the Diffie
   Hellman-generated keying material and sending it in the I2 packet.
   The authentication step upon receiving an R1 defeats the active
   attacker (impersonator) of the responder, and the act of encrypting
   the identity defeats the passive adversary.  Since the Responder
   sends its public key unencrypted in the first reply message (R1) to
   the Initiator, the Responder's identity will be revealed to third
   party on-path eavesdroppers.  However, if the Responder authenticates
   the Initiator and performs access controls before sending the R1, the
   Responder can avoid disclosing its public key to an active attacker.

   DNS records can provide information combining host identity and
   location information, the host public key, and host IP address.
   Therefore, identity and location privacy are related and should be
   treated in an integrated approach.  The goal of the BLIND is to
   provide a framework for identity and location privacy [paper.blind],
   [I-D.zhang-hip-privacy-protection].  The identity protection is
   achieved by hiding the actual public keys from third parties so that
   only the trusted hosts can recognize the keys.  Location privacy is
   achieved by integrating traffic forwarding with NAT translation and
   decoupling host identities from locators.  The use of random IP and
   MAC addresses also reduces the issue of location privacy shifting the
   focus to protecting host identifiers from third parties.  This
   approach is, by its very nature, incompatible with middlebox
   authentication.

   To prevent revealing the identity, the host public key and its hash
   (HIT) can be encrypted with a secret key known beforehand to both



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   Initiator and Responder.  However, this is a requirement that cannot
   be easily implemented in practice.  The BLIND framework provides
   protection from active and passive attackers using a modified HIP
   base exchange.  If the host avoids storing its public keys in the
   reverse DNS or DHT repository, the framework achieves full location
   and identity privacy.

   An alternative approach to reducing privacy threats of persistent
   identifiers is to replace them with short-lived identifiers that are
   changed regularly to prevent user tracking.  Furthermore, identifiers
   must be changed simultaneously at all protocol layers, or otherwise
   an adversary could still link the new identifier by looking at an
   identifier at another protocol layer that remained the same after the
   change.  The HIP privacy architecture that simultaneously changes
   identifiers on MAC, IP, and HIP/IPsec layers was developed at
   Helsinki University of Technology (TKK, now Aalto) [thesis.takkinen].
   HIP could be extended in the future to allow active sessions to
   migrate identities.

































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


7.  Experimental Basis of this Report

   This report is derived from reported experiences and research results
   of early adopters, implementers, and research activities.  In
   particular, a number of implementations have been in development
   since 2002 (Section 2).

   One production-level deployment of HIP has been reported.  Boeing has
   described how it uses HIP to build layer-2 VPNs over untrusted
   wireless networks [I-D.henderson-hip-vpls].  This use case is not a
   traditional end-host-based use of HIP but rather is one that uses
   HIP-aware middleboxes to create ESP tunnels on-demand between
   provider-edge (PE) devices.

   The InfraHIP II project is deploying HIP infrastructure (test
   servers, rendezvous and relay servers) in the public Internet.

   The following is a possibly incomplete list of past and current
   research activities related to HIP.

   o  Boeing Research & Technology (T. Henderson, J. Ahrenholz, J.
      Meegan.  OpenHIP implementation, Secure Mobile Architecture)

   o  NomadicLab, Ericsson (P. Jokela, P. Nikander, J. Melen.  BSD HIP
      implementation)

   o  Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT) (A. Gurtov,
      M. Komu, A. Pathak, D. Beltrami.  HIPL, legacy NAT traversal,
      firewall, i3, native API)

   o  Helsinki University of Technology (TKK, now Aalto) (Janne
      Lindqvist, Niklas Karlsson, Laura Takkinen, and Essi Vehmersalo.
      HIP security and firewalls, multiple identities, and privacy
      management)

   o  University of California, Berkeley (D. Joseph, HIP proxy
      implementation)

   o  Laboratory of Computer Architecture and Networks, Polytechnic
      School of University of Sao Paulo, Brazil (T. Carvalho, HIP
      measurements, Hi3)

   o  Telecom Italia (M. Morelli, comparing existing HIP
      implementations)

   o  NEC Heidelberg (L. Eggert, M. Esteban, V. Schmitt working on RVS
      implementation, DNS, NAT traversal)




Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   o  University of Hamburg-Harburg (M. Shanmugam, A. Nagarajan, HIP
      registration protocol)

   o  University of Tuebingen (K. Wehrle, T. Lebenslauf to work on Hi3
      or HIP-OpenDHT)

   o  University of Parma (UNIPR), Department of Information Engineering
      Parma, Italy.  N. Fedotova (HIP for P2P)

   o  Siemens (H. Tschofenig, HIP middleboxes)

   o  Denmark (Aalborg University, Lars Roost, Gustav Haraldsson, Per
      Toft, HIP evaluation project, OpenDHT-HIP interface)

   o  Microsoft Research, Cambridge (T. Aura, HIP analysis)

   o  MIT (H. Balakrishnan.  Delegation-Oriented Architecture)

   o  Huawei, hierarchical HIP architecture, HIP proxy, key revocation
      (D. Zhang, X. Xu)































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


8.  Related Work on ID-Locator Split

   This section briefly summarizes the related work on ID-locator split
   with particular focus on recent IETF and IRTF activity.  In the
   academic research community, several related proposals were explored
   prior to the founding of this research group, such as the Internet
   Indirection Infrastructure (i3) [paper.i3], IPNL [paper.layered],
   DataRouter [paper.datarouter], Network Pointers [paper.netpointers],
   FARA [paper.fara], and TRIAD [paper.triad].

   The topic of whether a new name space is needed for the Internet has
   been controversial.  The Name Space Research Group (NSRG) at the IRTF
   was not able to reach consensus on the issue, nor even to publish a
   final report.  Yet, there seems to be little disagreement that, for
   many scenarios, some level of indirection from network name to
   network location is essential or highly desirable to provide adequate
   service.  Mobile IP [RFC3775] is one example that reuses an existing
   name space for host naming.  Since Mobile IP was finalized, many new
   variants to providing this indirection have been suggested.  Even
   prior to Mobile IP, the IETF has published informational documents
   describing architectures separating network name and location,
   including the work of Jerome Saltzer [RFC1498], and Nimrod [RFC1992].

   Most recently, there has been standardization and development efforts
   in the IETF and IRTF as follows:

   o  The Site Multihoming in IPv6 (multi6) WG documented the ways that
      multihoming is currently implemented in IPv4 networks and
      evaluated several approaches for advanced multihoming.  The
      security threats and impact on transport protocols were covered
      during the evaluation.  The work continued in another WG, Site
      Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (shim6), which focusing on
      specifications of one selected approach [RFC5533]. shim6 uses the
      approach of inserting a shim layer between the IP and the
      transport layers that hides effects of changes in the set of
      available addresses.  The applications are using one active
      address that supports referrals.  Shim6 relies on
      cryptographically generated IPv6 addresses to solve the address
      ownership problem.  HIP and shim6 are architecturally similar and
      use a common format for control packets.  HIP specifications
      define only simple multihoming scenarios leaving such important
      issues as interface selection untouched.  Shim6 offers
      complementary functionality that can be be reused in HIP
      [I-D.oliva-hiprg-reap4hip].  The OpenHIP implementation integrates
      HIP and shim6 protocols in the same framework, with the goal of
      allowing HIP to reuse the shim6 failure detection protocol.
      Furthermore, HIP and shim6 socket APIs have been jointly designed
      [RFC6317] [RFC6316].



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   o  The IRTF Routing Research Group (RRG) has explored a class of
      solutions to the global routing scalability problem that involve
      either separation of the existing IP address space into those used
      for identifiers and locators as in LISP ([I-D.ietf-lisp]) and Six/
      One Router ([I-D.vogt-rrg-six-one]), and those advocating a fuller
      separation of these roles including ILNP ([I-D.rja-ilnp-intro]),
      and RANGI ([I-D.xu-rangi]).

   o  The End-Middle-End research group considered the potential for an
      explicit signaling and policy control plane for middleboxes and
      endpoints [I-D.irtf-eme-francis-nutss-design], and at a joint
      meeting at IETF 69, the HIP and EME research groups discussed
      whether the EME framework could help HIP with middlebox traversal.

   o  The IETF Multipath TCP working group is developing mechanisms to
      simultaneously use multiple paths in a regular TCP session.  The
      MPTCP solution aims to solve the multihoming problem also
      addressed by HIP but by solving it for TCP specifically.

   o  The Unmanaged Internet Protocol bears several similarities to the
      HIP architecture, such as the focus on identifiers that are not
      centrally managed that are also based on a cryptographic hash of a
      node's public key [thesis.ford].

   o  Apple Back To My Mac service provides secure connections between
      hosts using IPsec between a pair of host identifiers.  However,
      the host identifier is reported to be an IPv6 ULA address rather
      than a HIP identifier [RFC6281]

   Although the HIP research group has not formally tried to compare HIP
   with other ID-locator split approaches, such discussions have
   occurred on other lists such as the Routing research group mailing
   list, and a comparison of HIP's mobility management solution with
   other approaches was published in [I-D.thaler-mobility-comparison].

















Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


9.  Security Considerations

   This document is an informational survey of HIP-related research and
   experience.  Space precludes a full accounting of all security issues
   associated with the approaches surveyed here, but the individually
   referenced documents may discuss security considerations for their
   respective protocol component.  HIP security considerations for the
   base HIP protocol can be found in Section 8 of [RFC5201].











































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.
















































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


11.  Acknowledgments

   Miika Komu, Pekka Nikander, Ari Keranen, and Jeff Ahrenholz have
   provided helpful comments on earlier versions of this draft.  Miika
   Komu also contributed the section on opportunistic mode.  We also
   thank Dacheng Zhang for contributions on hierarchical HIP
   architectures, and the Crypto Forum Research Group (Adam Back and
   Paul Hoffman) for clarification of Diffie Hellman privacy properties.











































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


12.  Informative References

   [RFC2988]  Paxson, V. and M. Allman, "Computing TCP's Retransmission
              Timer", RFC 2988, November 2000.

   [RFC4423]  Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol
              (HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006.

   [RFC5201]  Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson,
              "Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008.

   [RFC5202]  Jokela, P., Moskowitz, R., and P. Nikander, "Using the
              Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with
              the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)", RFC 5202, April 2008.

   [RFC5203]  Laganier, J., Koponen, T., and L. Eggert, "Host Identity
              Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension", RFC 5203,
              April 2008.

   [RFC5204]  Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
              Rendezvous Extension", RFC 5204, April 2008.

   [RFC5205]  Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, "Host Identity Protocol
              (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions", RFC 5205,
              April 2008.

   [RFC5206]  Nikander, P., Henderson, T., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko, "End-
              Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity
              Protocol", RFC 5206, April 2008.

   [RFC5207]  Stiemerling, M., Quittek, J., and L. Eggert, "NAT and
              Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
              Communication", RFC 5207, April 2008.

   [RFC5770]  Komu, M., Henderson, T., Tschofenig, H., Melen, J., and A.
              Keranen, "Basic Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Extensions
              for Traversal of Network Address Translators", RFC 5770,
              April 2010.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              February 2006.

   [RFC4853]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Multiple
              Signer Clarification", RFC 4853, April 2007.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [RFC1498]  Saltzer, J., "On the Naming and Binding of Network
              Destinations", RFC 1498, August 1993.

   [RFC1992]  Castineyra, I., Chiappa, N., and M. Steenstrup, "The
              Nimrod Routing Architecture", RFC 1992, August 1996.

   [RFC2367]  McDonald, D., Metz, C., and B. Phan, "PF_KEY Key
              Management API, Version 2", RFC 2367, July 1998.

   [RFC5338]  Henderson, T., Nikander, P., and M. Komu, "Using the Host
              Identity Protocol with Legacy Applications", RFC 5338,
              September 2008.

   [RFC5533]  Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
              Shim Protocol for IPv6", RFC 5533, June 2009.

   [RFC6253]  Heer, T. and S. Varjonen, "Host Identity Protocol
              Certificates", RFC 6253, May 2011.

   [RFC6281]  Cheshire, S., Zhu, Z., Wakikawa, R., and L. Zhang,
              "Understanding Apple's Back to My Mac (BTMM) Service",
              RFC 6281, June 2011.

   [RFC6316]  Komu, M., Bagnulo, M., Slavov, K., and S. Sugimoto,
              "Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
              Multihoming Shim", RFC 6316, July 2011.

   [RFC6317]  Komu, M. and T. Henderson, "Basic Socket Interface
              Extensions for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)",
              RFC 6317, July 2011.

   [paper.i3]
              Stoica, I., Adkins, D., Zhuang, S., Shenker, S., and S.
              Surana, "Internet Indirection Infrastructure (i3)",
               Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, August 2002.

   [paper.layered]
              Balakrishnan, H., Lakshminarayanan, K., Ratnasamy, S.,
              Shenker, S., Stoica, I., and M. Walfish, "A Layered Naming
              Architecture for the Internet",  Proceedings of ACM
              SIGCOMM, August 2004.

   [paper.datarouter]
              Touch, J. and V. Pingali, "DataRouter:  A Network-Layer
              Service for Application-Layer Forwarding",  Proceedings of



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


              International Workshop on Active Networks (IWAN),
              December 2003.

   [paper.netpointers]
              Tschudin, C. and R. Gold, "Network Pointers",  ACM
              Computer Communications Review, January 2003.

   [paper.fara]
              Clark, D., Braden, R., Falk, A., and V. Pingali, "FARA:
              Reorganizing the Addressing Architecture",  Proceedings of
              ACM SIGCOMM FDNA Workshop, August 2003.

   [paper.triad]
              Cheriton, D. and M. Gritter, "TRIAD:  A New Next-
              Generation Internet Architecture",  Unpublished, available
              at Citeseer, July 2000.

   [paper.blind]
              "BLIND: A Complete Identity Protection Framework for End-
              points",  Proc. of the Twelfth International Workshop on
              Security Protocols, April 2004.

   [paper.usable-security]
              "Usable Security Management with Host Identity Protocol",
               Proc. of the IEEE/ACS International Conference on
              Computer Systems and Applications, May 2009.

   [paper.opp]
              "Leap-of-Faith Security is Enough for IP Mobility",  Proc.
              of the Sixth IEEE Conference on Consumer Communications
              and Networking Conference, January 2009.

   [paper.hipanalysis]
              Aura, T., Nagarajan, A., and A. Gurtov, "Analysis of the
              HIP Base Exchange Protocol",  Proc. of the 10th
              Australasian Conference on Information Security and
              Privacy (ACISP), July 2005.

   [paper.namespace]
              Komu, M., Tarkoma, S., Kangasharju, J., and A. Gurtov,
              "Applying a Cryptographic Namespace to Applications",
               Proc. of First International ACM Workshop on Dynamic
              Interconnection of Networks, September 2005.

   [paper.mobiarch]
              Khurri, A., Vorobyeva, E., and A. Gurtov, "Performance of
              Host Identity Protocol on Lightweight Hardware",
               Proceedings of ACM MobiArch, August 2007.



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   [paper.hi3]
              Gurtov, A., Korzon, D., Lukyanenko, A., and P. Nikander,
              "Hi3:  An Efficient and Secure Networking Architecture for
              Mobile Hosts",  Unpublished, available at Citeseer,
              June 2008.

   [paper.p2psip]
              Koskela, J., Heikkila, J., and A. Gurtov, "A secure P2P
              SIP system with SPAM prevention",  ACM Mobile Computer
              Communications Review, July 2009.

   [paper.handovers]
              Varjonen, S., Komu, M., and A. Gurtov, "Secure and
              Efficient IPv4/IPv6 Handovers Using Host-Based
              Identifier-Locator Split",  Proceedings of the 17th
              International Conference  Software, Telecommunications,
              and Computer Networks, September 2009.

   [paper.leap-of-faith]
              Komu, M. and J. Lindqvist, "Leap-of-faith security is
              enough for IP mobility",  Proceedings of the 6th IEEE
              Conference on Consumer Communications and Networking
              Conference (CCNC 09), 2009.

   [thesis.takkinen]
              Takkinen, L., "Host Identity Protocol Privacy Management",
               Master thesis, TKK, March 2006.

   [thesis.vehmersalo]
              Vehmersalo, E., "Host Identity Protocol Enabled Firewall:
              A Prototype Implementation and Analysis",  Master thesis,
              TKK, September 2005.

   [thesis.karlsson]
              Karlsson, N., "Enabling Multiple Host Identities on
              Linux",  Master thesis, Helsinki University of Technology,
              September 2005.

   [thesis.ford]
              Ford, B., "UIA:  A Global Connectivity Architecture for
              Mobile Personal Devices",  Doctoral thesis, Massachusetts
              Institute of Technology, September 2008.

   [thesis.bishaj]
              Bishaj, B., "Efficient Leap of Faith Security with Host
              Identity Protocol",  Master thesis, Helsinki University of
              Technology, June 2008.




Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 38]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   [I-D.nikander-esp-beet-mode]
              Melen, J. and P. Nikander, "A Bound End-to-End Tunnel
              (BEET) mode for ESP", draft-nikander-esp-beet-mode-09
              (work in progress), August 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal]
              Keranen, A. and J. Melen, "Native NAT Traversal Mode for
              the Host Identity Protocol",
              draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-01 (work in progress),
              January 2011.

   [I-D.vogt-rrg-six-one]
              Vogt, C., "Six/One: A Solution for Routing and Addressing
              in IPv6", draft-vogt-rrg-six-one-02 (work in progress),
              October 2009.

   [I-D.irtf-eme-francis-nutss-design]
              Francis, P., "An EME Signaling Protocol Design",
              draft-irtf-eme-francis-nutss-design-00 (work in progress),
              April 2007.

   [I-D.ponomarev-hip-hit2ip]
              Ponomarev, O. and A. Gurtov, "Embedding Host Identity Tags
              Data in DNS", draft-ponomarev-hip-hit2ip-04 (work in
              progress), July 2009.

   [I-D.xu-rangi]
              Xu, X., "Routing Architecture for the Next Generation
              Internet (RANGI)", draft-xu-rangi-04 (work in progress),
              August 2010.

   [I-D.rja-ilnp-intro]
              Atkinson, R., "ILNP Concept of Operations",
              draft-rja-ilnp-intro-11 (work in progress), July 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp]
              Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              draft-ietf-lisp-18 (work in progress), December 2011.

   [I-D.dietz-hip-operator-issues]
              Dietz, T., "Issues of HIP in an Operators Networks",
              draft-dietz-hip-operator-issues-00 (work in progress),
              October 2005.

   [I-D.huitema-multi-homed]
              Huitema, C., "Multi-homed TCP",
              draft-huitema-multi-homed-01 (work in progress), May 1995.



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 39]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   [I-D.irtf-hiprg-dht]
              Ahrenholz, J., "Host Identity Protocol Distributed Hash
              Table Interface", draft-irtf-hiprg-dht-05 (work in
              progress), December 2011.

   [I-D.thaler-mobility-comparison]
              Thaler, D., "A Comparison of IP Mobility-Related
              Protocols", draft-thaler-mobility-comparison-02 (work in
              progress), October 2006.

   [I-D.dawkins-trigtran-framework]
              Dawkins, S., "Framework and Requirements for TRIGTRAN",
              draft-dawkins-trigtran-framework-00 (work in progress),
              February 2003.

   [I-D.schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci]
              Schuetz, S., Koutsianas, N., Eggert, L., Eddy, W., Swami,
              Y., and K. Le, "TCP Response to Lower-Layer Connectivity-
              Change Indications", draft-schuetz-tcpm-tcp-rlci-03 (work
              in progress), February 2008.

   [I-D.swami-tcp-lmdr]
              Swami, Y., "Lightweight Mobility Detection and Response
              (LMDR) Algorithm for TCP", draft-swami-tcp-lmdr-07 (work
              in progress), March 2006.

   [I-D.henderson-hip-vpls]
              Henderson, T., Venema, S., and D. Mattes, "HIP-based
              Virtual Private LAN Service (HIPLS)",
              draft-henderson-hip-vpls-03 (work in progress),
              September 2011.

   [I-D.oliva-hiprg-reap4hip]
              Oliva, A. and M. Bagnulo, "Fault tolerance configurations
              for HIP multihoming", draft-oliva-hiprg-reap4hip-00 (work
              in progress), July 2007.

   [I-D.heer-hip-middle-auth]
              Hummen, R., Heer, T., and M. Komu, "End-Host
              Authentication for HIP Middleboxes",
              draft-heer-hip-middle-auth-04 (work in progress),
              October 2011.

   [I-D.zhang-hip-privacy-protection]
              Zhang, D. and M. Komu, "An Extension of HIP Base Exchange
              to Support Identity Privacy",
              draft-zhang-hip-privacy-protection-03 (work in progress),
              July 2011.



Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 40]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


   [I-D.irtf-hiprg-proxies]
              Zhang, D., Xu, X., Yao, J., and Z. Cao, "Investigation in
              HIP Proxies", draft-irtf-hiprg-proxies-04 (work in
              progress), October 2011.

   [I-D.moskowitz-hip-rg-dex]
              Moskowitz, R., "HIP Diet EXchange (DEX)",
              draft-moskowitz-hip-rg-dex-05 (work in progress),
              March 2011.










































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 41]

Internet-Draft            HIP Experiment Report            December 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Tom Henderson
   The Boeing Company
   P.O. Box 3707
   Seattle, WA
   USA

   Email: thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com


   Andrei Gurtov
   University of Oulu
   Centre for Wireless Communications CWC
   P.O. Box 4500
   FI-90014 University of Oulu
   Finland

   Email: gurtov@ee.oulu.fi
































Henderson & Gurtov        Expires June 18, 2012                [Page 42]

