idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-hip-rvs-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 610. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 587. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 594. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 600. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (June 7, 2006) is 6504 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-hip-base-05 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft: draft-ietf-hip-base (ref. 'I-D.ietf-hip-base') == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-hip-dns-06 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft: draft-ietf-hip-dns (ref. 'I-D.ietf-hip-dns') == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ietf-hip-registration-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft: draft-ietf-hip-registration (ref. 'I-D.ietf-hip-registration') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3484 (Obsoleted by RFC 6724) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-hip-mm-03 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4423 (Obsoleted by RFC 9063) Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Laganier 3 Internet-Draft DoCoMo Euro-Labs 4 Expires: December 9, 2006 L. Eggert 5 NEC 6 June 7, 2006 8 Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension 9 draft-ietf-hip-rvs-05 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2006. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 40 Abstract 42 This document defines a rendezvous extension for the Host Identity 43 Protocol (HIP). The rendezvous extension extends HIP and the HIP 44 registration extension for initiating communication between HIP nodes 45 via HIP rendezvous servers. Rendezvous servers improve reachability 46 and operation when HIP nodes are multi-homed or mobile. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. Overview of Rendezvous Server Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 3.1. Diagram Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 3.2. Rendezvous Client Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 3.3. Relaying the Base Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 56 4. Rendezvous Server Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 4.1. RENDEZVOUS Registration Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 4.2. Parameter Formats and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 4.2.1. RVS_HMAC Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 4.2.2. FROM Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 4.2.3. VIA_RVS Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 4.3. Modified Packets Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 4.3.1. Processing Outgoing I1 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 4.3.2. Processing Incoming I1 packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 4.3.3. Processing Outgoing R1 Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 4.3.4. Processing Incoming R1 packets . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 74 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15 76 1. Introduction 78 The Host Identity Protocol architecture [RFC4423] introduces the 79 rendezvous mechanism to help a HIP node to contact a frequently 80 moving HIP node. The rendezvous mechanism involves a third party, 81 the rendezvous server (RVS), which serves as an initial contact point 82 ("rendezvous point") for its clients. The clients of an RVS are HIP 83 nodes that use the HIP Registration Protocol [I-D.ietf-hip- 84 registration] to register their HIT->IP address mappings with the 85 RVS. After this registration, other HIP nodes can initiate a base 86 exchange using the IP address of the RVS instead of the current IP 87 address of the node they attempt to contact. Essentially, the 88 clients of an RVS become reachable at the RVS' IP addresses. Peers 89 can initiate a HIP base exchange with the IP address of the RVS, 90 which will relay this initial communication such that the base 91 exchange may successfully complete. 93 2. Terminology 95 This section defines terms used throughout the remainder of this 96 specification. 98 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 99 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 100 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 102 In addition to the terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-hip- 103 registration], this document defines and uses the following terms: 105 Rendezvous Service 106 A HIP service provided by a rendezvous server to its rendezvous 107 clients. The rendezvous server offers to relay some of the 108 arriving base exchange packets between the initiator and 109 responder. 111 Rendezvous Server (RVS) 112 A HIP registrar providing rendezvous service. 114 Rendezvous Client 115 A HIP requester that has registered for rendezvous service at a 116 rendezvous server. 118 Rendezvous Registration 119 A HIP registration for rendezvous service, established between a 120 rendezvous server and a rendezvous client. 122 3. Overview of Rendezvous Server Operation 124 Figure 1 shows a simple HIP base exchange without a rendezvous 125 server, in which the initiator initiates the exchange directly with 126 the responder by sending an I1 packet to the responder's IP address, 127 as per the HIP base specification [I-D.ietf-hip-base]. 129 +-----+ +-----+ 130 | |-------I1------>| | 131 | I |<------R1-------| R | 132 | |-------I2------>| | 133 | |<------R2-------| | 134 +-----+ +-----+ 136 Figure 1: HIP base exchange without rendezvous server. 138 Proposed extensions for mobility and multi-homing [I-D.ietf-hip-mm] 139 allow a HIP node to notify its peers about changes in its set of IP 140 addresses. These extensions presumes initial reachability of the two 141 nodes with respect to each other. 143 However, such a HIP node MAY also want to be reachable to other 144 future correspondent peers that are unaware of its location change. 145 The HIP architecture [RFC4423] introduces rendezvous servers with 146 whom a HIP node MAY register its host identity tags (HITs) and 147 current IP addresses. An RVS relays HIP packets arriving for these 148 HITs to the node's registered IP addresses. When a HIP node has 149 registered with an RVS, it SHOULD record the IP address of its RVS in 150 its DNS record, using the HIPRVS DNS record type defined in 151 [I-D.ietf-hip-dns]. 153 +-----+ 154 +--I1--->| RVS |---I1--+ 155 | +-----+ | 156 | v 157 +-----+ +-----+ 158 | |<------R1-------| | 159 | I |-------I2------>| R | 160 | |<------R2-------| | 161 +-----+ +-----+ 163 Figure 2: HIP base exchange with a rendezvous server. 165 Figure 2 shows a HIP base exchange involving a rendezvous server. It 166 is assumed that HIP node R previously registered its HITs and current 167 IP addresses with the RVS, using the HIP registration protocol 168 [I-D.ietf-hip-registration]. When the initiator I tries to establish 169 contact with the responder R, it must send the I1 of the base 170 exchange either to one of R's IP addresses (if known via DNS or other 171 means) or to one of R's rendezvous servers instead. Here, I obtains 172 the IP address of R's rendezvous server from R's DNS record and then 173 sends the I1 packet of the HIP base exchange to RVS. RVS, noticing 174 that the HIT contained in the arriving I1 packet is not one of its 175 own, MUST check its current registrations to determine if if needs to 176 relay the packets. Here, it determines that the HIT belongs to R and 177 then relays the I1 packet to the registered IP address. R then 178 completes the base exchange without further assistance from RVS by 179 sending an R1 directly to the I's IP address, as obtained from the I1 180 packet. In this specification the client of the RVS is always the 181 responder. However, there might be reasons to allow a client to 182 initiate a base exchange through its own RVS, like NAT and firewall 183 traversal. This specification does not address such scenarios which 184 should be specified in other documents. 186 3.1. Diagram Notation 188 Notation Significance 189 -------- ------------ 191 I, R I and R are the respective source and destination IP 192 addresses in the IP header. 194 HIT-I, HIT-R HIT-I and HIT-R are the initiator's and the 195 responder's HITs in the packet, respectively. 197 REG_REQ A REG_REQUEST parameter is present in the HIP header. 199 REG_RES A REG_RESPONSE parameter is present in the HIP header. 201 FROM:I A FROM parameter containing the IP address I is 202 present in the HIP header. 204 RVS_HMAC A RVS_HMAC parameter containing a HMAC keyed with the 205 appropriate registration key is present in the HIP 206 header. 208 VIA:RVS A VIA_RVS parameter containing the IP address RVS of a 209 rendezvous server is present in the HIP header. 211 3.2. Rendezvous Client Registration 213 Before a rendezvous server starts to relay HIP packets to a 214 rendezvous client, the rendezvous client needs to register with it to 215 receive rendezvous service by using the HIP registration extension 216 [I-D.ietf-hip-registration] as illustrated in the following schema: 218 +-----+ +-----+ 219 | | I1 | | 220 | |--------------------------->| | 221 | |<---------------------------| | 222 | I | R1(REG_INFO) | RVS | 223 | | I2(REG_REQ) | | 224 | |--------------------------->| | 225 | |<---------------------------| | 226 | | R2(REG_RES) | | 227 +-----+ +-----+ 229 3.3. Relaying the Base Exchange 231 If a HIP node and one of its rendezvous servers have a rendezvous 232 registration, the rendezvous servers relay inbound I1 packets that 233 contain one of the client's HITs by rewriting the IP header. They 234 replace the destination IP address of the I1 packet with one of the 235 IP addresses of the owner of the HIT, i.e., the rendezvous client. 236 They MUST also recompute the IP checksum accordingly. 238 Because of egress filtering on the path from the RVS to the client 239 [RFC2827][RFC3013], a HIP rendezvous server SHOULD replace the source 240 IP address, i.e., the IP address of I, with one of its own IP 241 addresses. The replacement IP address SHOULD be chosen according to 242 [RFC1122] and, when IPv6 is used, to [RFC3484]. Because this 243 replacement conceals the initiator's IP address, the RVS MUST append 244 a FROM parameter containing the original source IP address of the 245 packet. This FROM parameter MUST be integrity protected by an 246 RVS_HMAC keyed with the corresponding rendezvous registration 247 integrity key [I-D.ietf-hip-registration]. 249 I1(RVS, R, HIT-I, HIT-R 250 I1(I, RVS, HIT-I, HIT-R) +---------+ FROM:I, RVS_HMAC) 251 +----------------------->| |--------------------+ 252 | | RVS | | 253 | | | | 254 | +---------+ | 255 | V 256 +-----+ R1(R, I, HIT-R, HIT-I, VIA:RVS) +-----+ 257 | |<---------------------------------------------| | 258 | | | | 259 | I | I2(I, R, HIT-I, HIT-R) | R | 260 | |--------------------------------------------->| | 261 | |<---------------------------------------------| | 262 +-----+ R2(R, I, HIT-R, HIT-I) +-----+ 264 This modification of HIP packets at a rendezvous server can be 265 problematic because the HIP protocol uses integrity checks. Because 266 the I1 does not include HMAC or SIGNATURE parameters, these two end- 267 to-end integrity checks are unaffected by the operation of rendezvous 268 servers. 270 The RVS SHOULD verify the checksum field of an I1 packet before doing 271 any modifications. After modification, it MUST recompute the 272 checksum field using the updated HIP header, which possibly included 273 new FROM and RVS_HMAC parameters, and a pseudo-header containing the 274 updated source and destination IP addresses. This enables the 275 responder to validate the checksum of the I1 packet "as is", without 276 having to parse any FROM parameters. 278 4. Rendezvous Server Extensions 280 The following sections describe extensions to the HIP registration 281 protocol [I-D.ietf-hip-registration], allowing a HIP node to register 282 with a rendezvous server for rendezvous service and notify the RVS 283 aware of changes to its current location. It also describes an 284 extension to the HIP protocol [I-D.ietf-hip-base] itself, allowing 285 establishment of HIP associations via one or more HIP rendezvous 286 server(s). 288 4.1. RENDEZVOUS Registration Type 290 This specification defines an additional registration for the HIP 291 registration protocol [I-D.ietf-hip-registration] that allows 292 registering with a rendezvous server for rendezvous service. 294 Number Registration Type 295 ------ ----------------- 296 1 RENDEZVOUS 298 4.2. Parameter Formats and Processing 300 4.2.1. RVS_HMAC Parameter 302 The RVS_HMAC is a non-critical parameter whose only difference with 303 the HMAC parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-hip-base] is its "type" code. 304 This change causes it to be located after the FROM parameter (as 305 opposed to the HMAC): 307 Type [ TBD by IANA (65500 = 2^16 - 2^5 - 2^2) ] 308 Length 20 309 HMAC 160 low order bits of a HMAC keyed with the 310 appropriate HIP integrity key (HIP_lg or HIP_gl), 311 established when rendezvous registration happened. 312 This HMAC is computed over the HIP packet, excluding 313 RVS_HMAC and any following parameters. The 314 "checksum" field MUST be set to zero and the HIP header 315 length in the HIP common header MUST be calculated 316 not to cover any excluded parameter when the 317 "authenticator" field is calculated. 319 To allow a rendezvous client and its RVS to verify the integrity of 320 packets flowing between them, both SHOULD protect packets with an 321 added RVS_HMAC parameter keyed with the HIP_lg or HIP_gl integrity 322 key established while registration occurred. A valid RVS_HMAC SHOULD 323 be present on every packets flowing between a client and a server and 324 MUST be present when a FROM parameters is processed. 326 4.2.2. FROM Parameter 328 0 1 2 3 329 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 330 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 331 | Type | Length | 332 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 333 | | 334 | Address | 335 | | 336 | | 337 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 339 Type [ TBD by IANA (65498 = 2^16 - 2^5 - 2) ] 340 Length 16 341 Address An IPv6 address or an IPv4-in-IPv6 format IPv4 address. 343 A rendezvous server MUST add a FROM parameter containing the original 344 source IP address of a HIP packet whenever the source IP address in 345 the IP header is rewritten. If one or more FROM parameters are 346 already present, the new FROM parameter MUST be appended after the 347 existing ones. 349 Whenever an RVS inserts a FROM parameter, it MUST insert an RVS_HMAC 350 protecting the packet integrity, especially the IP address included 351 in the FROM parameter. 353 4.2.3. VIA_RVS Parameter 355 0 1 2 3 356 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 357 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 358 | Type | Length | 359 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 360 | | 361 | Address | 362 | | 363 | | 364 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 365 . . . 366 . . . 367 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 368 | | 369 | Address | 370 | | 371 | | 372 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 374 Type [ TBD by IANA (65502 = 2^16 - 2^5 + 2) ] 375 Length Variable 376 Address An IPv6 address or an IPv4-in-IPv6 format IPv4 address 378 After the responder receives a relayed I1 packet, it can begin to 379 send HIP packets addressed to the initiator's IP address, without 380 further assistance from an RVS. For debugging purposes, it MAY 381 include a subset of the IP addresses of its RVSs in some of these 382 packets. When a responder does so, it MUST append a newly created 383 VIA_RVS parameter at the end of the HIP packet. The main goal of 384 using the VIA_RVS parameter is to allow operators to diagnose 385 possible issues encountered while establishing a HIP association via 386 an RVS. 388 4.3. Modified Packets Processing 390 The following subsections describe the differences of processing of 391 I1 and R1 while a rendezvous server is involved in the base exchange. 393 4.3.1. Processing Outgoing I1 Packets 395 An initiator SHOULD NOT send an opportunistic I1 with a NULL 396 destination HIT to an IP address which is known to be a rendezvous 397 server address, unless it wants to establish a HIP association with 398 the rendezvous server itself and does not know its HIT. 400 When an RVS rewrites the source IP address of an I1 packet due to 401 egress filtering, it MUST add a FROM parameter to the I1 that 402 contains the initiator's source IP address. This FROM parameter MUST 403 be protected by an RVS_HMAC keyed with the integrity key established 404 at rendezvous registration. 406 4.3.2. Processing Incoming I1 packets 408 When a rendezvous server receives an I1 whose destination HIT is not 409 its own, it consults its registration database to find a registration 410 for the rendezvous service established by the HIT owner. If it finds 411 an appropriate registration, it relays the packet to the registered 412 IP address. If it does not find an appropriate registration, it 413 drops the packet. 415 A rendezvous server SHOULD interpret any incoming opportunistic I1 416 (i.e., an I1 with a NULL destination HIT) as an I1 addressed to 417 itself and SHOULD NOT attempt to relay it to one of its clients. 419 When a rendezvous client receives an I1, it MUST validate any present 420 RVS_HMAC parameter. If the RVS_HMAC cannot be verified, the packet 421 SHOULD be dropped. If the RVS_HMAC cannot be verified and a FROM 422 parameter is present, the packet MUST be dropped. 424 A rendezvous client acting as responder SHOULD drop opportunistic I1s 425 that include a FROM parameter, because this indicates that the I1 has 426 been relayed. 428 4.3.3. Processing Outgoing R1 Packets 430 When a responder replies to an I1 relayed via an RVS, it MUST append 431 to the regular R1 header a VIA_RVS parameter containing the IP 432 addresses of the traversed RVS's. 434 4.3.4. Processing Incoming R1 packets 436 The HIP base specification [I-D.ietf-hip-base] mandates that a system 437 receiving an R1 MUST first check to see if it has sent an I1 to the 438 originator of the R1 (i.e., it is in state I1-SENT). When the R1 is 439 replying to a relayed I1, this check SHOULD be based on HITs only. 440 In case the IP addresses are also checked, then the source IP address 441 MUST be checked against the IP address included in the VIA_RVS 442 parameter. 444 5. Security Considerations 446 This section discusses the known threats introduced by these HIP 447 extensions and implications on the overall security of HIP. In 448 particular, it argues that the extensions described in this document 449 do not introduce additional threats to the Host Identity Protocol. 451 It is difficult to encompass the whole scope of threats introduced by 452 rendezvous servers, because their presence has implications both at 453 the IP and HIP layers. In particular, these extensions might allow 454 for redirection, amplification and reflection attacks at the IP 455 layer, as well as attacks on the HIP layer itself, for example, man- 456 in-the-middle attacks against the HIP base exchange. 458 If an initiator has a priori knowledge of the responder's host 459 identity when it first contacts it via an RVS, it has a means to 460 verify the signatures in the HIP base exchange, which is known to be 461 thus resilient to man-in-the-middle attacks. 463 If an initiator does not have a priori knowledge of the responder's 464 host identity (so-called "opportunistic initiators"), it is almost 465 impossible to defend the HIP exchange against these attacks, because 466 the public keys exchanged cannot be authenticated. The only approach 467 would be to mitigate hijacking threats on HIP state by requiring an 468 R1 answering an opportunistic I1 to come from the same IP address 469 that originally sent the I1. This procedure retains a level of 470 security which is equivalent to what exists in the Internet today. 472 However, for reasons of simplicity, this specification does not allow 473 to establish a HIP association via a rendezvous server in an 474 opportunistic manner. 476 6. IANA Considerations 478 This section is to be interpreted according to [RFC2434]. 480 This document updates the IANA Registry for HIP Parameters Types by 481 assigning new HIP Parameter Types values for the new HIP Parameters 482 defined in Section 4.2: 484 o RVS_HMAC (defined in Section 4.2.1) 486 o FROM (defined in Section 4.2.2) 488 o VIA_RVS (defined in Section 4.2.3) 490 7. Acknowledgments 492 The following people have provided thoughtful and helpful discussions 493 and/or suggestions that have improved this document: Marcus Brunner, 494 Tom Henderson, Miika Komu, Mika Kousa, Pekka Nikander, Justino 495 Santos, Simon Schuetz, Tim Shepard, Kristian Slavov, Martin 496 Stiemerling and Juergen Quittek. 498 Julien Laganier and Lars Eggert are partly funded by Ambient 499 Networks, a research project supported by the European Commission 500 under its Sixth Framework Program. The views and conclusions 501 contained herein are those of the authors and should not be 502 interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or 503 endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the Ambient Networks 504 project or the European Commission. 506 8. References 508 8.1. Normative References 510 [I-D.ietf-hip-base] 511 Moskowitz, R., "Host Identity Protocol", 512 draft-ietf-hip-base-05 (work in progress), March 2006. 514 [I-D.ietf-hip-dns] 515 Nikander, P. and J. Laganier, "Host Identity Protocol 516 (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extensions", 517 draft-ietf-hip-dns-06 (work in progress), February 2006. 519 [I-D.ietf-hip-registration] 520 Laganier, J., "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration 521 Extension", draft-ietf-hip-registration-01 (work in 522 progress), December 2005. 524 [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - 525 Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989. 527 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 528 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 530 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 531 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 532 October 1998. 534 [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet 535 Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. 537 8.2. Informative References 539 [I-D.ietf-hip-mm] 540 Nikander, P., "End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the 541 Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-mm-03 (work in 542 progress), March 2006. 544 [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: 545 Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source 546 Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000. 548 [RFC3013] Killalea, T., "Recommended Internet Service Provider 549 Security Services and Procedures", BCP 46, RFC 3013, 550 November 2000. 552 [RFC4423] Moskowitz, R. and P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol 553 (HIP) Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006. 555 Authors' Addresses 557 Julien Laganier 558 DoCoMo Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH 559 Landsberger Strasse 312 560 Munich 80687 561 Germany 563 Phone: +49 89 56824 231 564 Email: julien.ietf@laposte.net 565 URI: http://www.docomolab-euro.com/ 567 Lars Eggert 568 NEC Network Laboratories 569 Kurfuerstenanlage 36 570 Heidelberg 69115 571 Germany 573 Phone: +49 6221 90511 43 574 Fax: +49 6221 90511 55 575 Email: lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de 576 URI: http://www.netlab.nec.de/ 578 Intellectual Property Statement 580 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 581 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 582 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 583 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 584 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 585 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 586 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 587 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 589 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 590 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 591 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 592 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 593 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 594 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 596 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 597 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 598 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 599 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 600 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 602 Disclaimer of Validity 604 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 605 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 606 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 607 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 608 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 609 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 610 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 612 Copyright Statement 614 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 615 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 616 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 618 Acknowledgment 620 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 621 Internet Society.