F28-HP: No
Rationale
The selected HIP composition uses RFC 8046 host mobility: LOCATOR_SET communicates reachable peer addresses and preferences while preserving the host identity and ESP association. It does not expose selection or exclusion of forwarding intermediaries beyond endpoint locators and local attachment. IP routing still chooses the transit path.
Assessment method
Primary specification review; no runtime experiment
Source context
RFC 6740 and RFC 8046 architectural review
Outstanding qualification
This verdict concerns HIPv2/ESP with RFC 8046 as selected, not all possible HIP extensions or IP routing configurations. RFC 8046 explicitly leaves multihoming procedures to RFC 8047, which is not selected here. Address verification and preferred-locator changes enable mobility but do not establish an endpoint-controlled intermediary segment. The RFC's discussion of an attacker using an IPv6 Routing header is not a selected HIP path-control service. No runtime experiment or claim that HIP prevents other-layer path control.
Public sources
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8046.html#section-3.2
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8046.html#section-1
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8046.html#section-5.5
Editorial evidence references
The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.
- round519.html
- round519-sources.json