[Battlemesh] Host Identity Protocol, any experience?
dave.taht at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 16:06:55 CET 2016
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Antonio Quartulli <a at unstable.cc> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 02:05:25PM +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
>> Just read about this protocol a few days ago:
>> Has anyone had the pleasure to play with it yet?
>> Seems like it might be a necessity to support truely decentral,
>> distributed, dynamic internet uplinks in a public mesh network?
>> (otherwise, everytime a node with a direct uplink vanishes, TCP
>> connections would break or would need some tunneling)
>> The idea of HIP to strip the identity part from IP addresses and
>> replacing it with a layer in between, which cryptographically
>> generates identities, sounds ingenious!
I used to use hip a lot, but at least until recently nat traversal had
become a problem. It is widely embedded in some factory floor gear (as
a pre-IOT concept). It does solve one problem really thoroughly -
validating that your IP is really your IP.
In the context of battlemesh it's potentially interesting, although a
common mistake I made is offering a HIP route to the network, which
would not work, I even reached the point to where I wanted to block
that range out by default in all routing daemons.
> Isn't it like any other overlay network where a layer in between introduces a
> new logical identifier for an host/entity instead of relying on the IP?
> Cisco might be "stronger" in "forcing" its own protocol. But, practically, where
> would be the difference? Or am I missing something?
> Antonio Quartulli
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
More information about the Battlemesh