A Comparison of
Download
1 / 12

Dave Thaler dthaler@microsoft - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 120 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Dave Thaler dthaler@microsoft' - hada


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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

IETF 66


Goal of this presentation
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


Disclaimers
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


Terminology
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


Extension header order
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


Layering
Layering

Transport layer

IPsec + HIP sub-layer

Fragmentation/reassembly

Network

Layer

SHIM6 sub-layer

MIP6 sub-layer

Routing sub-layer

Link layer

IETF 66





Deployment considerations
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



Questions
Questions?

IETF 66