One document matched: draft-lee-hip-object-02.txt
Differences from draft-lee-hip-object-01.txt
HIP Working Group Gyu Myoung Lee
Internet Draft Jun Kyun Choi
Intended status: Informational ICU
Expires: September 2009 Seng Kyoun Jo
Jeong Yun Kim
ETRI
March 9, 2009
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications
draft-lee-hip-object-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2009.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 1]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 2]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
Abstract
This document explains the concept of object to object communications
and specifies naming and addressing issues for object identification.
In order to use Host Identity Protocol (HIP) for object to object
communications, this document provides the extended architecture of
HIP according to mapping relationships between host and object(s). In
addition, packet formats and considerations for HIP extensions
concerning object are specified.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 3]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 5
2. Object to Object Communications.............................. 5
3. Object Identification ....................................... 6
3.1. Classification of network entities to be identified..... 6
3.2. Identification codes ................................... 6
3.3. Examples of service IDs for objects .................... 7
3.3.1. RFID .............................................. 7
3.3.2. Content ID......................................... 7
3.4. Requirements for naming and addressing using object
identification .............................................. 7
4. HIP Architecture for Object to Object Communications......... 9
4.1. The mapping relationships between host and object(s).... 9
4.1.1. Host = Object (one to one mapping) ................ 9
4.1.2. Host =! Object (one to many mapping) .............. 9
4.2. The stack architecture ................................. 9
4.3. Object mapping schemes ................................ 10
5. HIP Extensions ............................................. 13
5.1. Case #1: Objects in a host............................. 13
5.2. Case #2: Remote objects ............................... 13
5.3. Packet format ......................................... 13
5.3.1. Proposal #1 ...................................... 13
5.3.2. Proposal #2 ...................................... 15
5.3.3. Comparison of two proposals ...................... 16
5.4. Protocol operations and procedures .................... 17
6. Considerations for HIP Extensions .......................... 18
6.1. Security association .................................. 18
6.2. Support of DNS, and HIP rendezvous server ............. 19
6.3. Protocol overhead ..................................... 19
6.4. Common identifier for object .......................... 19
6.5. Specific user cases ................................... 19
6.6. Services using extended HIP............................ 20
7. Security Considerations .................................... 20
8. IANA Considerations ........................................ 20
9. References ................................................. 20
9.1. Normative References................................... 20
9.2. Informative References ................................ 21
Appendix A. Change History .................................... 21
Author's Addresses ............................................ 22
Acknowledgment ................................................ 22
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 4]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
1. Introduction
The role of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) is the separation between
the location and identity information by introducing a new
cryptographic name space which is called Host Identity (HI). It
provides enhanced network security as well as easy management of
mobility and multi-homing [RFC4423].
The one of new capabilities for future network will be the ubiquitous
networking such as the Internet of things. This networking capability
requires "Any Services, Any Time, Any Where and Any Devices"
operation. In order to connect objects (e.g., devices and/or
machines) to large databases and networks, a simple, unobtrusive and
cost-effective system of item identification is crucial. The concept
of host should be extended to support all of objects. However, there
is no consideration for new type of objects (e.g., contents, RFID
tags, sensors, etc) as end points.
This document explains object to object communications. For
identification of network entities, we consider new type of
identifiers (e.g., RFID code, content ID, etc) for object and
describe specific requirements for object identification in naming
and addressing point of view.
In order to use HIP for object to object communication, this document
provides the extended architecture of HIP according to mapping
relationship between host and object(s). In addition, packet formats
and considerations for HIP extensions are specified.
2. Object to Object Communications
For ubiquitous networking [Y.NGN-UbiNet], future network will require
the extensions of networking functionalities to all objects. New
networking concept will be considered for networking capabilities to
support various classes of applications/services which require "Any
Services, Any Time, Any Where and Any Devices" operation using
Internet. This networking capability should support human-to-human,
human-to-object (e.g., device and/or machine) and object-to-object
communications.
There are many different kinds of devices connecting to the network
supported for ubiquitous networking in Internet. RFID tag, sensors,
smart cards, medical devices, navigation devices, vehicles as well as
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 5]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
the existing personal devices such as PC, Personal Digital Assistant
(PDA), etc., are examples of these. This document considers that the
end points which are not always humans but may be objects such as
devices /machines, and then expanding to small objects and parts of
objects.
Thus, object to object communications will be provided using the new
concept of end points considering object. This document focuses on
how to support object to object communications using extensions of
existing HIP.
3. Object Identification
3.1. Classification of network entities to be identified
There are several network entities to be identified in the network.
These network entities have a layered architecture and are used for
naming, addressing and routing.
o Services (i.e., information related to applications/services)
o End points (i.e., global unique identifier)
o Location (i.e., IP address)
o Path (i.e., routing)
In particular, for object to object communications, information for
several kinds of object on top of end points should be identified in
the network.
3.2. Identification codes
Identification of all objects for providing end-to-end connectivity
in ubiquitous networking environment is crucial. Identifier is
capable of identifying all objects and facilitates objects-to-objects
communications. In particular, the globally unique identifier enables
a lot of applications including item tracking, access control, and
protection, etc [1].
There are many kinds of identifiers such as E.164 number code,
Extended Unique Identifier (EUI)-64, Media Access Control (MAC)
address, Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)/ Uniform Resource Locator
(URL), etc.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 6]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
These identification codes can be classified as follows.
o Service IDs: include RFID, Content ID, telephone number, URL/URI,
etc
o Communication IDs: include session/protocol ID, IP address, MAC
address, etc
3.3. Examples of service IDs for objects
3.3.1. RFID
The identification codes, so-called Electronic Product Code (EPC),
for RFID/sensors are very important in ubiquitous networking
environment. An EPC is simply a number assigned to an RFID tag
representative of an actual electronic product code. Their value is
that they have been carefully characterized and categorized to embed
certain meanings within their structure. Each number is encoded with
a header, identifying the particular EPC version used for coding the
entire EPC number. An EPC manager number is defined, allowing
individual companies or organizations to be uniquely identified; an
object class number is present, identifying objects used within this
organization, such as product types. Finally, a serial number is
characterized, allowing the unique identification of each individual
object tagged by the organization [2].
3.3.2. Content ID
The Content ID is a unique identifier that can specify and
distinguish any kind of digital content that is distributed. As a
unique code attached to a content object, the Content ID serves well
enough as an identifier, but actually it is much more than just that.
It is also the key to a complete set of attribute information about a
content object stored as metadata including the nature of the
contents, rights-related information, information about distribution,
and more. The Content ID provides the key enabling metadata to be
uniquely associated with a particular digital object [3].
3.4. Requirements for naming and addressing using object identification
The layered architecture of naming and addressing requires specific
processing capabilities at each layer. Each user/object in service
layer identifies by identity like name with a set of attributes of an
entity. An attribute can be thought of as metadata that belongs to a
specific entity in a specific context, some of which could to be
highly private or sensitive. The identity should be associated with
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 7]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
service IDs (RFID, content ID, telephone number, URI/URL, etc)
through identification and authorization.
As shown in Figure 1, each service ID should be associated with
communication IDs (session/protocol ID, IP address, MAC address, etc)
through mapping/binding [Y.ipv6-ID].
+-----------------+
| Service IDs |
+-----------------+
|
|mapping/binding
|
+-----------------+
|Communication IDs|
+-----------------+
Figure 1 Mapping/binding for naming and addressing
An ID resolution server such as Domain Name System (DNS), can provide
a function to translate the identifier of object into service
/communication ID to access networking services provided by
database/application servers.
How to map/bind IP address (i.e., communications IDs) with other
identifiers (i.e., service IDs) for providing end-to-end IP
connectivity is challenging issue.
Additionally, the following features should be provided using naming
and addressing capability through object identification.
o Protection of object (including right management)
o Connecting to anything using object identification
o Service and location discovery
Therefore, identity protocol for object, i.e., HIP extensions, should
be developed in order to perform mapping/binding capability and
support the features required in communications between objects.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 8]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
4. HIP Architecture for Object to Object Communications
4.1. The mapping relationships between host and object(s)
4.1.1. Host = Object (one to one mapping)
In case of a host is equal to an object, there is one to one mapping
relationship between host and object. Most of information devices
such as PC, etc are included in this case.
For example, if you use a telephone device, the device as host can be
allocated a telephone number as service ID and be treated the same
object.
4.1.2. Host =! Object (one to many mapping)
In case of a host is not equal to an object, there is one to many
mapping relationship between host and object(s). Content server, RFID
tags/Reader, etc are included in this case.
There are two kinds of one to many mapping as follows (see Figure 2):
o As shown in Figure 2 (a), host including objects such as content
server, a host includes many objects and these objects should be
identified using content ID, etc.
o As shown in Figure 2 (b), host with remote objects such as RFID
tags, a host has many remote objects and these objects should be
identified using RFID code, etc. In this case, each object might
be non IP.
4.2. The stack architecture
The original stack architecture of HIP can be extended according to
the mapping relationships between host and object(s).
o As shown in Figure 3 (a), objects in a host (case #1), the end
point is the same with current HIP architecture. However, each
object in service layer should be identified by a host using
mapping protocol for object.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 9]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
o As shown in Figure 3 (b), remote objects (case #2), the end point
will be each object. This means that host location is different
from end point(s). Thus, current HIP should be extended to support
several end points with a host. From object information in service
layer, each object identity should be defined.
Detailed protocol extensions will be specified in Section 5.
4.3. Object mapping schemes
We can consider two kinds of object mapping schemes using one to many
mapping relationship as follows:
o Direct mapping (Figure 3 (a))
An object at application layer is directly reachable to host
entity at network attachment point which IP is terminated. An
object is located on top of TCP/IP protocol stack. For example,
host including objects such as content server, a host includes
many objects and these objects should be identified using content
ID, etc.
o Indirect mapping (Figure 3 (b))
An object at application layer is remotely reachable through non-
IP interface to host entity at network attachment point which IP
is terminated. An object is located outside of physical network
attachment which IP is terminated. For example, host with remote
objects such as RFID tags, a host has many remote objects and
these objects should be identified using RFID code, etc. In this
case, each object might be non IP.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 10]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
+--------------------------+
| |
| +--------+ |
| | Object | |
| +--------+ |
| |
| +--------+ |
| | Object | |
| +--------+ |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| |
| +--------+ |
| | Object | |
| +--------+ |
| |
| Host |
| |
+--------------------------+
(a) Host including objects(e.g., content server)
+--------+
-----------------| Object |
/ +--------+
/ .
/ .
+------+ +--------+
| Host | ------------------ | Object |
+------+ +--------+
\ .
\ .
\ +--------+
----------------| Object |
+-------+
Remote objects
(non IP)
(b) Host with remote objects(e.g., RFID tags/Reader)
Figure 2 Mapping between host and objects (one to many mapping)
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 11]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
Host (e.g., content server)
+----------------------------+
| +----+ |
| | | Object IDs |
| +----+ |
| | |
| +----+ |
| | | Host ID |
| +----+ |
| | |
| +----+ |
| | | IP address |
| +----+ |
| | |
| +----+ |
| | | Network |
| +----+ attachment |
+----------------------------+
IP interface |
-----------------------+
(a) Case #1: Objects in a host (host location = end points)
Object IDs
+----+
| |
Host (e.g., RFID reader) +----+
+---------------------------+ |
| +----+ | |
| | | Host ID | |
| +----+ | |
| | | |
| +----+ | |
| | | IP address | |
| +----+ | |
| | | |
| +----+ | |
| | | Network | |
| +----+ attachment | |
+---------------------------+ |
IP interface | | non-IP interface |
---------------------+ +-------------------------+
(b) Case #2: Remote objects (host location =! end points)
Figure 3 Extension of stack architecture
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 12]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
The proposed address and identifier mapping structure has the
following advantages.
o Perform two functions together - Routing using network prefix
information and identification code using service IDs
o Connecting to Anything - Provide the connectivity to end device
without additional equipment such as Network Address Translator
o Scalability - enough name space for supporting object-to-object
communications
o Security - security solution using HIP hash function, etc
5. HIP Extensions
5.1. Case #1: Objects in a host
In case of Figure 3 (a), several object identifiers as well as host
identity should be delivered to each host for mapping information
between host identity and object identities.
In order to deliver object information, this document newly defines a
new TLV, i.e., Object_ID (see Section 5.3.).
5.2. Case #2: Remote objects
As case of Figure 3 (b), Object Identity (OI) information instead of
host identity should be delivered to each host for mapping
information between IP address and object identities.
Thus, this document newly specifies Object Identity Tag (OIT) in HIP
message. Each OIT typically identifies a service and can also
identify end point.
5.3. Packet format
5.3.1. Proposal #1
To support the previous extended architecture for object, the current
HIP packet should be extended as follows.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 13]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
o HIP header (include OIT)
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Header Length |0| Packet Type | VER. | RES.|1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum | Controls |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's Host/Object Identity Tag (HIT/OIT) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiver's Host/Object Identity Tag (HIT/OIT) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
/ HIP Parameters /
/ /
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The information for object should be included HIP header according to
specific cases as described in Figure 3.
o Object_ID (newly defined from HOST_ID of HIP)
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 14]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OI Length |DI-type| DI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Object Identity /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Domain Identifier /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type TBD
Length length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and
Padding
OI Length length of the Object Identity in octets
DI-type type of the following Domain Identifier field
DI Length length of the FQDN or NAI in octets
Object Identity actual Object Identity
Domain Identifier the identifier of the sender
The Object Identity is generated from Service IDs defined for
specific applications/services. The detailed algorithms and formats
follow the concept of the existing HIP specified in [RFC5201].
Other packet formats are subject to change according to HIP.
5.3.2. Proposal #2
For security association, there is an alternative to keep the
existing Host_ID and add new Domain Identifier type for the object ID.
In this case, we can use the existing HIP for security association.
Note: This is a result of hiprg e-mail discussion[4]. For this method,
we need further discussion.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 15]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
o HOST_ID
0 1 2 3
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HI Length |DI-type| DI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Host Identity /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Domain Identifier /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
and add the following new DI-type:
The following DI-types have been defined:
Type Value
none included 0
FQDN 1
NAI 2
+ Object ID 3
and then specify a new Domain Identifier format for the Object ID.
5.3.3. Comparison of two proposals
TBD
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 16]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
5.4. Protocol operations and procedures
HIP basic operation (an example)
o In case of communications suing RFID reader/tags, HIP Initiator
can be a RFID reader which is connected to a RFID tag (object)
using air interface and HIP Responder can be the information
server which stores all information of RFID tags. And then, if
this information server has a role of HIP rendezvous server, a
client can get binding information between Host (HIP Initiator)and
an object behind RFID reader for reachability to object(S) as end
point(s).
o The RFID reader has one-to-many mapping relationship. So, a host
identity of RFID reader maps onto many object identities.
o For IPsec security associations, HIP will definitely be terminated
at the RFID reader because HIP should be tightly coupled with
network layer. Similar with objects inside server, although each
object is located remotely through air interface with RFID reader,
we would like to consider RFID reader and tag as the same node
virtually.
o In this case, we can consider two solutions.
o The one is to put new name space (i.e., object identity) on
top of HIP with RFID reader. This is the similar with case #1
in Figure 3 (a).
o The other is that object identity replaces host identity on
top of network layer of RFID reader as we originally suggested
in case #2 in Figure 3 (b). However, if we keep the existing
Host ID as we discussed in Section 5.3.2. proposal #2, this
solution can't be applicable.
Protocol procedures
We illustrate the basic protocol procedure of sending a data packet
to an object and mappings/bindings that are involved as shown in
Figure 4:
o Find a node on which the required object resides. This requires
finding object and end point through object ID registration. Name
resolution using DNS is optionally required.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 17]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
o Find a network attachment point to which the node is connected.
This requires finding location. For this, a client gets binding
information of object ID and IP address.
o Find a path from the client to object(s). The client can reachable
to object(s) using routing path and binding information between
HIP initiator and object(s). The datagram which is transferred to
object(s) might have the information of object ID.
+---+ Name +-----+
DNS | |<-----------> | | Information Server
+---+ Resolution +-----+ (HIP Responder)
/ \
/ \
/ \
Find Location / \ Find objects (end points)
/ \
2)get binding information \ 1) Register object IDs
of Object ID and / \
IP address / \
/ \
/ +-------------------+
/ |+--+ |
/ || |HIP Initiator |
/ |+--+ |
/ | ++ ++ ++ |
+------+ Find path | ++ ++ ++ objects |
| |<=========================> | |
+------+ 3)connect to object(s) | ++ ++ ++ |
Client using routing path & | ++ ++ ++ |
binding information +-------------------+
Figure 4 Protocol procedure for connecting objects
6. Considerations for HIP Extensions
6.1. Security association
It is critical to provide security association for secure binding
between object identity and host identity [5]. For our cases, we can
consider connection latching mechanism for IPsec channels [6].
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 18]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
6.2. Support of DNS, and HIP rendezvous server
In order to support from existing infrastructure, including DNS, and
HIP rendezvous server, it is required to define DNS resource records.
The newly defined DNS resource records should include information on
object identifiers and object identity tags (OITs)
6.3. Protocol overhead
Real time communications and some limitation of power and packet size,
lightweight identity handshake for datagram transactions is critical.
6.4. Common identifier for object
Most of identifiers for object specified with different format
according to applications. However, in order to contain information
of all objects in HIP message and interoperate globally, it is
required to specify common identifier and rules to accommodate all
objects with unified format.
6.5. Specific user cases
HIP for object can use original advantages of HIP for specific user
cases.
o Identity-based roaming and mobility
o Hierarchical routing
o Addressing and location management
o Multi-homing
o Rendezvous service (or mechanism)
o DNS service
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 19]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
6.6. Services using extended HIP
The proposed extended HIP can provide an integrated solution for
personal location and management through identification /naming
/addressing including ID registration, location tracking, dynamic
mobility control, and security using the following networking
services:
o Identity management (IdM) services for the management of the
identity life cycle of objects including managing unique IDs,
attributes, credentials, entitlements to consistently enforce
business and security policies.
o Location management services for real-time location tracking,
monitoring, and information processing of moving objects similar
with Supply Chain Management.
o Networked ID (N-ID) services for providing communication service
which is triggered by an identification process started via
reading an identifier from identifier storage such as RFID tag,
barcode label, smartcard, etc.
o Home networking services for the management of multiple object
identities in a host and/or remote host using RFID tag, ubiquitous
sensor, etc.
7. Security Considerations
This document has specific security considerations as described in
Section 6 and aligns with the security requirements in [RFC4423] and
[RFC5201].
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
None
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 20]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4423] R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006.
[RFC5201] R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, P. Jokela, T. Henderson, "Host
Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008.
[Y.NGN-UbiNet] ITU-T TD280Rev1 (NGN-GSI), "Initial Draft
Recommendation Y.NGN-UbiNet, Overview and Principles
for Ubiquitous Networking in NGN", work in progress,
September 2008.
[Y.IPv6-ID]ITU-T TD252 (NGN-GSI), "Initial Draft Recommendation
Y.ipv6-object (Framework of Object Mapping using IPv6 in
NGN)," work in progress, September 2008.
[1] Gyu Myoung Lee, Jun Kyun Choi, Taesoo Chung, Doug Montgomery,
"Standardization for ubiquitous networking in IPv6-based NGN,"
ITU-T Kaleidoscope Event - Innovations in NGN, pp.351-357, May
2008.
[2] EPCglobal, "EPCglobal Object Name Service (ONS) 1.0.1," May
2008.
[3] Content ID Forum (cIDf), "cIDf Specification 2.0," April 2007.
[4] IETF HIP-RG mailing group discussion, available at
https://listserv.cybertrust.com/pipermail/hipsec-rg/2008-
December/000545.html
[5] Heer, Varjonen, "IP Certificates," IETF Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-hip-cert-00.txt, work in progress, October 2008.
[6] N. Williams, "IPsec Channels: Connection Latching," IETF
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-btns-connection-latching-08.txt,
work in progress, November 2008.
Appendix A. Change History
Changes from November 2, 2008 version to March 9, 2009 version:
o Add Section 4.3. object mapping schemes
o Change Figure 3. Extension of stack architecture
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 21]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
o Add new proposal for protocol extension in Section 5.3
o Add Section 5.4. Protocol operations and procedures and Figure 4
o Add additional considerations in Section 6
Author's Addresses
Gyu Myoung Lee
Information and Communications University (ICU)
119 Munjiro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-732, KOREA
Phone: +82-42-866-6828
Email: gmlee@icu.ac.kr
Jun Kyun Choi
Information and Communications University (ICU)
119 Munjiro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-732, KOREA
Phone: +82-42-866-6226
Email: jkchoi@icu.ac.kr
Seng Kyoun Jo
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
138 Gajeongno, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-700, KOREA
Phone: +82-42-860-6461
Email: skjo@etri.re.kr
Jeong Yun Kim
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
138 Gajeongno, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-700, KOREA
Phone: +82-42-860-5311
Email: jykim@etri.re.kr
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Tom Henderson for providing valuable input
and comments in this document.
Lee, et al. Expires September 9, 2009 [Page 22]
HIP Extensions for Object to Object Communications March 2009
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 01:50:42 |