Re: [IPsec] [multipathtcp] IPsec multihoming and mobility

Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 05 November 2009 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D1C3A6ACA; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:48:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30WEcuWXjdsx; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:48:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com (gv-out-0910.google.com [216.239.58.189]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DFE3A6AB7; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:48:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id e6so19545gvc.15 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:48:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UosYlT4cHZFLu8YCDFkE/F3I0RvHsKXU2hoMJVh1X24=; b=pngIvEJ9EKW2WCeqnPdbP9qyOxhyHLI1a74vJHv/UFfgbm6Z4SRZX2QoFS7Cts/lHD /fB21F5foWL0iXsoyhmMCTyX2dEIylbAevSBklGb6xJ9zszuqMPicOs/eztZ1ZD8iEOQ q1XBPBP6cNalDEWtag8wTQhxthF7Xtp4kDtoE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=j65pGnmFugRE44wPvn8be8OVe08ldZqqtH1UBzko/l/WI9GzTcz+BeN8n4ucFiPTM8 NqcMY3SDq2nzNbsj6TBfeXZKCiVdppF/eYWb2fYW9t/C8f6KQtFe9S2v6w2O7SroOO0O EcFveLk0O+v+Z2lokiKxGLyj8L/c/Z76K22UY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.102.197.14 with SMTP id u14mr1179348muf.39.1257432536138; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:48:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D42BF6E1-B415-4AA1-8537-6F84F9FD9C40@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <51eafbcb0910210129x60cf00eek4ee53df746e515a8@mail.gmail.com> <D42BF6E1-B415-4AA1-8537-6F84F9FD9C40@lurchi.franken.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:48:56 +0100
Message-ID: <51eafbcb0911050648u61f05eaamd6b94e608109e392@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael_T=FCxen?= <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364d274ba544800477a0d390
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, multipathtcp@ietf.org, mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IPsec] [multipathtcp] IPsec multihoming and mobility
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:48:39 -0000

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate your feed back.

Sections of the requirements draft on SCTP, SHIM6 should be filled, and I
will mention RFC3554 in the SCTP section.

In both drafts we consider only IKEv2, so I don't think RFC3554 is really
relevant. I am not an expert on IKEv1, but it looks that features introduced
by RFC3554 are not longer necessary since with IKEv2 since IKEv2 provides
the ability to negotiate multiple Traffic Selector, and TS are not
associated to the ID Payload anymore.

On the other hand IKEv2 or IKEv1 and RFC3554 does not  enable to modify the
Traffic Selectors of the Security Association. And this is one of the thing
we address in the drafts.

Regards,

Daniel


On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Michael Tüxen <
Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>; wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> have you looked at
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3554.txt
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
>
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
>  Hi folks,
>>
>> We are currently working on IPsec issues and multihoming. Here are our
>> starting work with a presentation of scenarios and requirements we address,
>> as well as the design of an extension to MOBIKE.
>>
>> Scenarios and Requirements :
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-ipsec-mm-requirements-00
>>
>> Protocol Design :
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-ipsec-mm-mobikex-00
>>
>> We are currently working implementing it, and looking on how other
>> multihoming protocol can benefit from it.
>>
>> Feed backs  and comments are really appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Migault
>> Orange Labs -- Security
>> +33 6 70 72 69 58
>> _______________________________________________
>> multipathtcp mailing list
>> multipathtcp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multipathtcp
>>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58