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

Dear Raj,

I support the simplified mobile IPv6, but I would like to see it as an Informational, or Experimental document.
So the relation between sMIP6 and MIP6 may also be simplified, imho.

Regards
Xiangsong

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com>
To: <mext@ietf.org>
Cc: <int-area@ietf.org>; <jari.arkko@piuha.net>; <rdroms@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:55 PM
Subject: [MEXT] Rethink on Mobile IPv6

> 
> 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