Browse Prior Art Database

NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Communication (RFC5207)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000169514D
Original Publication Date: 2008-Apr-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2008-Apr-19
Document File: 14 page(s) / 28K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

M. Stiemerling: AUTHOR [+3]

Abstract

The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) changes the way in which two Internet hosts communicate. One key advantage over other schemes is that HIP does not require modifications to the traditional network- layer functionality of the Internet, i.e., its routers. In the current Internet, however, many devices other than routers modify the traditional network-layer behavior of the Internet. These "middleboxes" are intermediary devices that perform functions other than the standard functions of an IP router on the datagram path between source and destination hosts. Whereas some types of middleboxes may not interfere with HIP at all, others can affect some aspects of HIP communication, and others can render HIP communication impossible. This document discusses the problems associated with HIP communication across network paths that include specific types of middleboxes, namely, network address translators and firewalls. It identifies and discusses issues in the current HIP specifications that affect communication across these types of middleboxes. This document is a product of the IRTF HIP Research Group.

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 10% of the total text.

Network Working Group                                     M. Stiemerling Request for Comments: 5207                                    J. Quittek Category: Informational                                              NEC                                                                L. Eggert                                                                    Nokia                                                               April 2008

    NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP)                              Communication

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does    not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this    memo is unlimited.

IESG Note

   This RFC is a product of the Internet Research Task Force and is not    a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.  The IRTF publishes    the results of Internet-related research and development activities.    These results might not be suitable for deployment.

Abstract

   The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) changes the way in which two

   Internet hosts communicate.  One key advantage over other schemes is

   that HIP does not require modifications to the traditional network-

   layer functionality of the Internet, i.e., its routers.  In the

   current Internet, however, many devices other than routers modify the

   traditional network-layer behavior of the Internet.  These

   "middleboxes" are intermediary devices that perform functions other

   than the standard functions of an IP router on the datagram path

   between source and destination hosts.  Whereas some types of

   middleboxes may not interfere with HIP at all, others can affect some

   aspects of HIP communication, and others can render HIP communication

   impossible.  This document discusses the problems associated with HIP

   communication across network paths that include specific types of

   middleboxes, namely, network address translators and firewalls.  It

   identifies and discusses issues in the current HIP specifications

   that affect communication across these types of middleboxes.  This

   document is a product of the IRTF HIP Research Group.

 Stiemerling, et al.          Informational                      [Page 1]
 RFC 5207           HIP NAT/Firewall Traversal Issues          April 2008

 Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  HIP across NATs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....