[PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[Andrei Gurtov]

Hi,

Please have a look at Host Identity Protocol, a better solution for 
secure mobility and multihoming than Mobile IP.

http://hipl.hiit.fi/hipl/release/kernel-patches/linux-2.6.10-hipl-0.1.patch

Project info: http://infrahip.hiit.fi/

Specs: http://hip.piuha.net/drafts/

Andrei

Re: [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[Pekka Savola]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Andrei Gurtov wrote:
> Please have a look at Host Identity Protocol, a better solution for secure 
> mobility and multihoming than Mobile IP.
>
> http://hipl.hiit.fi/hipl/release/kernel-patches/linux-2.6.10-hipl-0.1.patch

Please clean up the patch :).  It has tons of changes which have 
nothing to do with HIP.  Maybe it was diffed against the wrong tree?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: [Infrahip] Re: [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[Miika Komu]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Andrei Gurtov wrote:
> > Please have a look at Host Identity Protocol, a better solution for secure
> > mobility and multihoming than Mobile IP.
> >
> > http://hipl.hiit.fi/hipl/release/kernel-patches/linux-2.6.10-hipl-0.1.patch
>
> Please clean up the patch :).  It has tons of changes which have
> nothing to do with HIP.  Maybe it was diffed against the wrong tree?

My apologies, I'll clean the patch today. It was created against the
correct tree, but we have a separate repository that has accumulated some
deleted files from older kernel versions.

-- 
Miika Komu              miika@iki.fi          http://www.iki.fi/miika/

Re: [Infrahip] Re: [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[Miika Komu]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Andrei Gurtov wrote:
> > Please have a look at Host Identity Protocol, a better solution for secure
> > mobility and multihoming than Mobile IP.
> >
> > http://hipl.hiit.fi/hipl/release/kernel-patches/linux-2.6.10-hipl-0.1.patch
>
> Please clean up the patch :).  It has tons of changes which have
> nothing to do with HIP.  Maybe it was diffed against the wrong tree?

Fixed. I replaced the old patch with a clean one.

-- 
Miika Komu              miika@iki.fi          http://www.iki.fi/miika/

Re: [Infrahip] [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[Miika Komu]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Andrei Gurtov wrote:

> Please have a look at Host Identity Protocol, a better solution for
> secure mobility and multihoming than Mobile IP.
>
> http://hipl.hiit.fi/hipl/release/kernel-patches/linux-2.6.10-hipl-0.1.patch
>
> Project info: http://infrahip.hiit.fi/

I made the release directory structure more usable. The latest patch can
be found from:

http://infrahip.hiit.fi/hipl/release/0.1.2/linux-2.6.10-hipl-0.1.2.patch

All feedback is welcome.

-- 
Miika Komu              miika@iki.fi          http://www.iki.fi/miika/

Re: [Infrahip] [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0503201805240.1521@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> (at Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:08:30 +0200 (EET)), Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi> says:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Andrei Gurtov wrote:
> 
> > Please have a look at Host Identity Protocol, a better solution for
> > secure mobility and multihoming than Mobile IP.
:
> I made the release directory structure more usable. The latest patch can
> be found from:
> 
> http://infrahip.hiit.fi/hipl/release/0.1.2/linux-2.6.10-hipl-0.1.2.patch

I think you're doing great work.
However, all signaling should be handled in userspace as we (will) do for MIP6.

-- 
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF  80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA

Re: [Infrahip] [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[David S. Miller]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:42:41 +0900 (JST)
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ^[$B5HF#1QL@^[(B <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> wrote:

> However, all signaling should be handled in userspace as we (will) do for MIP6.

Yes, I've been telling them similarly in a private
email discussion.  I'm very glad someone else says
this too, so I don't appear as the only person who
feels this way :-)

Re: [Infrahip] [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[Miika Komu]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, David S. Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:42:41 +0900 (JST)
> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / µÈÆ£±ÑÌÀ <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> wrote:
>
> > However, all signaling should be handled in userspace as we (will) do
> > for MIP6.
>
> Yes, I've been telling them similarly in a private
> email discussion.  I'm very glad someone else says
> this too, so I don't appear as the only person who
> feels this way :-)

Thank you, David and Yoshifugi, for your feedback. Please accept my
apologies for my late response.

I am having difficulties in digesting the counterarguments against the
kernel based approach because of the lack of detailed reasoning and
ambiguities. Yes, MIP6 and IKE signalling is handled in the userspace, but
the same is not true for SCTP (lksctp). At the same time, Linux is a
monolithic kernel instead of microkernel architecture. Finally, good
engineering practise is to put everything in the userspace, unless there
is good reason for putting it in to the kernelspace.

We don't currently have concrete measurements (comparing userspace and
kernelspace approaches) to justify our kernel oriented approach, so we
will have to get back to you later with some figures. If the results show
that an userspace implementation is superior to a kernel based approach in
terms of security or performance, we may have rewrite the code to the
userspace. In the mean time, do you happen to know any good references
where any userspace network protocol implementation has been compared and
measured against a kernelspace implementation? It would be a good starting
point for us.

I would like to mention that lksctp was implemented in the 2.6 kernel
because of better performance and tighter integration to the socket API.
We are dealing with similar issues with HIPL but seems like we need to
justify the reasons by analyzing and measuring. In addition, security
issues (DoS protection, user supplied public keys, etc) are taken pretty
seriously in HIP and may benefit from a kernel oriented approach.

-- 
Miika Komu              miika@iki.fi          http://www.iki.fi/miika/

Re: [Infrahip] [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[David S. Miller]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:08:31 +0200 (EET)
Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi> wrote:

> Yes, MIP6 and IKE signalling is handled in the userspace, but
> the same is not true for SCTP (lksctp).

SCTP is a network protocol used for data transfer.

HIP is a signalling mechanism used to setup configuration.

> engineering practise is to put everything in the userspace, unless there
> is good reason for putting it in to the kernelspace.
> 
> We don't currently have concrete measurements (comparing userspace and
> kernelspace approaches) to justify our kernel oriented approach, so we
> will have to get back to you later with some figures. If the results show
> that an userspace implementation is superior to a kernel based approach in
> terms of security or performance, we may have rewrite the code to the
> userspace. In the mean time, do you happen to know any good references
> where any userspace network protocol implementation has been compared and
> measured against a kernelspace implementation? It would be a good starting
> point for us.
> 
> I would like to mention that lksctp was implemented in the 2.6 kernel
> because of better performance and tighter integration to the socket API.
> We are dealing with similar issues with HIPL but seems like we need to
> justify the reasons by analyzing and measuring. In addition, security
> issues (DoS protection, user supplied public keys, etc) are taken pretty
> seriously in HIP and may benefit from a kernel oriented approach.
> 
> -- 
> Miika Komu              miika@iki.fi          http://www.iki.fi/miika/

Re: [Infrahip] [PATCH] Host Identity Protocol

[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0503221531020.19531@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> (at Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:08:31 +0200 (EET)), Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi> says:

> will have to get back to you later with some figures. If the results show
> that an userspace implementation is superior to a kernel based approach in
> terms of security or performance, we may have rewrite the code to the

And, IMHO, the most important argument is, probably, in terms of
simplicity and universality of kernel part.
e.g. MIP6 uses XFRM / stackable destination architecture as its
fundamental infrastructure.

They (simplicity and universality) are unlikely measurable, though.


> justify the reasons by analyzing and measuring. In addition, security
> issues (DoS protection, user supplied public keys, etc) are taken pretty
> seriously in HIP and may benefit from a kernel oriented approach.

I belive that we can find solutions to solve these issues (if any).

--yoshfuji