Re: [Int-area] [MEXT] Rethink on Mobile IPv6

Hi Raj,

[company hat on]
1. On one side, you _never_ reply to technical questions (cf.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg03594.html) about
your issues regarding MIPv6/IPsec interactions.
2. OTOH, MIPv6 open-source implementations work with IPsec/IKE.

Conclusion: Have I recommend to chose open-source implementations
rather than your company's implementation? :)
[company hat off]

Best regards.

JMC.

2010/3/3  <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>:
>
> Mobile IPv6 (RFC3775) has been an RFC since 2004, and Dual-stack
> Mobile IPv6 (RFC5555) since 2009. Implementations of the protocol has
> been lacklustre to say the least. Several SDOs have considered MIP6
> and DSMIP6 as a solution for interworking and mobility between
> different access technologies and only 3GPP has adopted it in a very
> limited manner for Rel 8 (for use on the S2c interface) with the
> likelihood of it being actually deployed quite low (IMO).
>
> While there are many reasons that can be attributed to the lack of
> implementations and use, one that I would like to raise is the the
> concern with the overly complex security model that MIP6/DSMIP6 relies
> on today. MIP6/DSMIP6 requires IPsec and IKE/IKEv2 (RFC3776/4877) to
> secure the signaling between the MN and HA. The fundamental purpose of
> MIP6/DSMIP6 is to provide mobility to hosts. At a very high level the
> MIP6/DSMIP6 protocol boils down to the ability to setup a tunnel
> between the MN and HA and update the MN tunnel end-point whenever
> there is a change in the associated IP address (CoA). The signaling to
> establish the tunnel needs to be secure. But using a protocol like
> IKEv2 and IPsec to achieve this security is just an overkill. It
> increases the complexity of the implementation as a result of many
> factors that have been captured in I-D:
> draft-patil-mext-mip6issueswithipsec and discussed in the MEXT WG
> meetings.
>
> Given the objective of the protocol is to enable IP mobility for hosts,
> it should focus on doing that well in a manner that makes it easy to
> implement/adopt/deploy/scale. My opinion as a result of implementation
> experience is that MIP6/DSMIP6 can be significantly simplified,
> especially the security architecture. The protocol as specified
> currently in RFC3775/RFC5555 is a kitchensink of features. Getting back
> to basics of simply establishing a tunnel between the MN and HA and
> managing that tunnel is all that is needed and would potentially see
> the light of day in the real world.
>
> You may want to call it as Mobile IPv6-lite if you wish. But I do
> believe that a simplification of the protocol is needed without which
> I fear it will remain an academic exercise with many years spent in
> developing a spec. I hope the working group and people who are
> involved in mobility related work would consider undertaking such an
> effort in the IETF.
>
> -Basavaraj
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>