[CGA-EXT] Applicability of draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send

Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> Thu, 10 December 2009 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
X-Original-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cga-ext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747833A69E4 for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:09:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.994
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.994 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cp9tnNcjU2uH for <cga-ext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-4.Sun.COM []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BE63A67BE for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com ([]) by sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nBAG9Jbj015744 for <cga-ext@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:09:19 GMT
Received: from [] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM []) by jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBAG9GKT194799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:09:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B211D2A.2050105@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:09:14 -0800
From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cga-ext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [CGA-EXT] Applicability of draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send
X-BeenThere: cga-ext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: CGA and SeND Extensions <cga-ext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cga-ext>
List-Post: <mailto:cga-ext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext>, <mailto:cga-ext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:09:31 -0000

The document lists three applicable scenarios, and I don't understand 
how the ND Proxy (RFC 4389) fits with the proposed solution.

My understanding of the usage model for RFC 4389 is that the hosts need 
not be modified, nor have any specific configuration, to work with 4389 

However, csi-proxy-send not only requires that all the SeND hosts be 
modified, it also makes them aware of the 4389 proxy. If we are going to 
make host modifications and have the hosts be aware of the proxy, then 
we can do something more robust than 4389. The desirable feature of 4389 
was to be transparent to the hosts and routers.

The other scenarios are quite different. For instance a Mobile IPv6 host 
is well aware that the home agent is a proxy on its behalf.