1 / 12

Dave Thaler dthaler@microsoft

A Comparison of Mobility-Related Protocols: MIP6,SHIM6, and HIP draft-thaler-mobility-comparison-01.txt. Dave Thaler dthaler@microsoft.com. Goal of this presentation. Help those in none of the WGs understand the relationship between them Help those in one WG understand other WGs.

hada
Download Presentation

Dave Thaler dthaler@microsoft

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparison of Mobility-Related Protocols: MIP6,SHIM6, and HIP draft-thaler-mobility-comparison-01.txt Dave Thaler dthaler@microsoft.com IETF 66

  2. Goal of this presentation • Help those in none of the WGs understand the relationship between them • Help those in one WG understand other WGs IETF 66

  3. Disclaimers • Only work in the IETF (as WG drafts and RFCs) has been considered • There are individual submissions and IRTF drafts in addition • This is a snapshot in time, as of beginning of June 2006 • This is a moving target • Only MIP6, SHIM6, and HIP have been considered so far • Other mobility-related protocols do exist (NEMO, SCTP, NETLMM, MOBIKE, etc.) • Points of comparison derived from union of the three problem statements IETF 66

  4. Terminology • Name: A DNS fully-qualified domain name • Upper-layer Identifier (ULID): Address used above the mobility/multihoming layer • MIP6: “Home Address” • SHIM6: “ULID” • HIP: “Host Identity Tag (HIT)” • Locator: Address used below the mobility/multihoming layer • MIP6: “Care-of Address” • SHIM6 & HIP: “Locator” IETF 66

  5. Extension Header Order Each protocol defines headers to go in data packets, and defines where they have to go A hypothetical data packet with all of them, plus other headers, would look like this: IPv6 Hdr HbH Opts Type 2 Rtg Hdr DstOpts (HoA) SHIM6 PEH Frag Hdr ESP (HIP) Payload SHIM6 HIP Mobile IPv6 This leads to a natural layering model… IETF 66

  6. Layering Transport layer IPsec + HIP sub-layer Fragmentation/reassembly Network Layer SHIM6 sub-layer MIP6 sub-layer Routing sub-layer Link layer IETF 66

  7. Feature Comparison 1/2 IETF 66

  8. Feature Comparison 2/2 IETF 66

  9. Efficiency Considerations IETF 66

  10. Deployment Considerations For the full security benefit of HIP, DNSSec is also needed However, without it, it’s no worse than the others IETF 66

  11. Security Considerations IETF 66

  12. Questions? IETF 66

More Related