draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-21.txt   draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-22.txt 
HIP Working Group A. Keranen HIP Working Group A. Keranen
Internet-Draft J. Melen Internet-Draft J. Melen
Intended status: Standards Track M. Komu, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track M. Komu, Ed.
Expires: April 26, 2018 Ericsson Expires: April 26, 2018 Ericsson
October 23, 2017 October 23, 2017
Native NAT Traversal Mode for the Host Identity Protocol Native NAT Traversal Mode for the Host Identity Protocol
draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-21 draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal-22
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a new Network Address Translator (NAT) This document specifies a new Network Address Translator (NAT)
traversal mode for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). The new mode is traversal mode for the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). The new mode is
based on the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) methodology based on the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) methodology
and UDP encapsulation of data and signaling traffic. The main and UDP encapsulation of data and signaling traffic. The main
difference from the previously specified modes is the use of HIP difference from the previously specified modes is the use of HIP
messages for all NAT traversal procedures. messages for all NAT traversal procedures.
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
either of the hosts moves and changes its IP address, the two hosts either of the hosts moves and changes its IP address, the two hosts
re-establish connectivity using the mobility extensions [RFC8046]. re-establish connectivity using the mobility extensions [RFC8046].
The reader is also recommended to get familiar with the mobility The reader is also recommended to get familiar with the mobility
extensions, but basically it is a three-way procedure, where the extensions, but basically it is a three-way procedure, where the
mobile host first announces its new location to the peer, and then mobile host first announces its new location to the peer, and then
the peer tests for connectivity (so called return routability check), the peer tests for connectivity (so called return routability check),
for which the mobile hosts must respond in order to activate its new for which the mobile hosts must respond in order to activate its new
location. This specification builds on the mobility procedures, but location. This specification builds on the mobility procedures, but
modifies it to be compatible with ICE. The differences to the modifies it to be compatible with ICE. The differences to the
mobility extensions specified in Appendix C. It is worth noting that mobility extensions specified in Appendix C. It is worth noting that
multihoming support as specified in [RFC8078] is left for further multihoming support as specified in [RFC8047] is left for further
study. study.
This specification builds heavily on the ICE methodology, so it is This specification builds heavily on the ICE methodology, so it is
recommended that the reader is familiar with the ICE specification recommended that the reader is familiar with the ICE specification
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] (especially the overview). However, native [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] (especially the overview). However, native
ICE-HIP does not implement all the features in ICE, and, hence, the ICE-HIP does not implement all the features in ICE, and, hence, the
different features of ICE are cross referenced using [RFC2119] different features of ICE are cross referenced using [RFC2119]
terminology for clarity. Appendix B explains the differences to ICE. terminology for clarity. Appendix B explains the differences to ICE.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
skipping to change at page 49, line 47 skipping to change at page 49, line 47
[RFC8004] Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC8004] Laganier, J. and L. Eggert, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Rendezvous Extension", RFC 8004, DOI 10.17487/RFC8004, Rendezvous Extension", RFC 8004, DOI 10.17487/RFC8004,
October 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8004>. October 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8004>.
[RFC8046] Henderson, T., Ed., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko, "Host Mobility [RFC8046] Henderson, T., Ed., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko, "Host Mobility
with the Host Identity Protocol", RFC 8046, with the Host Identity Protocol", RFC 8046,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8046, February 2017, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC8046, February 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8046>. editor.org/info/rfc8046>.
[RFC8078] Gudmundsson, O. and P. Wouters, "Managing DS Records from [RFC8047] Henderson, T., Ed., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko, "Host
the Parent via CDS/CDNSKEY", RFC 8078, Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol", RFC 8047,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8078, March 2017, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC8047, February 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8078>. editor.org/info/rfc8047>.
[RFC5770] Komu, M., Henderson, T., Tschofenig, H., Melen, J., and A. [RFC5770] Komu, M., Henderson, T., Tschofenig, H., Melen, J., and A.
Keranen, Ed., "Basic Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Keranen, Ed., "Basic Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Extensions for Traversal of Network Address Translators", Extensions for Traversal of Network Address Translators",
RFC 5770, DOI 10.17487/RFC5770, April 2010, RFC 5770, DOI 10.17487/RFC5770, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5770>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5770>.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
 End of changes. 3 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 6 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/