RE: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document

john.loughney@nokia.com Tue, 10 January 2006 04:42 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EwBL8-0004u1-GB; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:42:34 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EwBL6-0004to-Uy; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:42:33 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01285; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 23:41:13 -0500 (EST)
From: john.loughney@nokia.com
Received: from mgw-ext04.nokia.com ([131.228.20.96]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EwBRi-0003Ew-OT; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:49:24 -0500
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext04.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k0A4eNvn022457; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:40:28 +0200
Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:42:17 +0200
Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:42:17 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:42:15 +0200
Message-ID: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D01869A98@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document
Thread-Index: AcYVdfqxHSsDr599SGCwOeBcsUTpHQAKbvOQ
To: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se, narten@us.ibm.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2006 04:42:17.0147 (UTC) FILETIME=[3BF488B0:01C615A0]
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: leslie@thinkingcat.com, iab@ietf.org, sbrim@cisco.com, MRW@devicescape.com, sob@harvard.edu, ipv6-dir@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IPv6 Directorate <ipv6-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir>, <mailto:ipv6-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir>, <mailto:ipv6-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org

Hi all,


>>> Mobility.
>>>
>>> The IPv6 mobility model, Mobile Support in IPv6 aka Mobile IPv6, has
>>> been adopted from the IPv4 version Mobile IP, with some
modifications
>>> and extensions.  Especially the security model for route
optimisation
>>> is different.  Mobile IPv6 is documented in RFC 3775 and RFC 3776,
>>> with an optional extension in RFC 4283.  RFC 4225 explains the
>>> rational and design behind the route optimisation security model,
and
>>> its limitations.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand why Mobility is being called out for
>> discussion. Is this a "NGN" topic? Mobility is _NOT_ what I normally
>> think of as "network infrastructure". Its largely an e2e approach
>> involving end nodes (mobile & correspondant nodes) and servers (Home
>> Agents). It is built on top of a network, it is not part of the
"core"
>> network itself.  Also, there are a lot of IETF WGs that are doing
IPv6
>> work that might be related. E.g., autoconf/manet. Do we mention them
>> all? What is the criteria for deciding  what to mention and what not?
>>
>> Also, the above isn't entirely accurate. For example, there is no
>> route optimization in MIPv4, so it doesn't make sense to say
>> "especially the security model for route optimization is different".
>
>I just answered the questions :-)
>
>Could we get some input on this from Pekka that wrote the text? I  
>have no feelings one wy ro the other. I didn't make any changes here.

I think that this looks OK.  Just for everyone's info, I would assume
MobIKE
would be within what NGN is looking at.  3GPP WLAN interworking & UMA
(essentially GSM voice tunneled over IP/WLAN) use IKEv2 for interworking
back into the core network.  There is mobility between home & wide-area
cellular networks.  NGN is starting to look into this area, though I am
not
sure what everything is that they are investigating for this kind of
mobility.

John

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
ipv6-dir@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir