Re: [MEXT] Review of draft draft-patil-mext-mip6issueswithipsec-01

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Arnaud,

I will respond to your other comments as soon as I get some time..

But just one thing:

________________________________________
From: ext Arnaud Ebalard [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 2:29 PM
To: Patil Basavaraj (Nokia-D/Dallas)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Review of draft draft-patil-mext-mip6issueswithipsec-01


>>
>>No. IPsec stack and IKE daemon may already have support for MOBIKE which
>>does exactly what we need. The only difference is that the signaling
>>goes through the IKE channel. With MIPv6, signaling is MIPv6 one
>>(BU/BA). In all cases, extending the IPsec stack to support MIPv6 is
>>light. Same for IKE.
>
> I think this where I would disagree. At least from our experience of
> doing a DSMIP6 implementation, the challenges are primarily in the
> interactions between the mobility module and the IPsec/IKEv2
> modules. YMMV.

I won't argue for DSMIPv6.

Raj> MIP6 by itself is useless today. Maybe 10 years from now when we hopefully have some deployment of IPv6 networks and is available natively on links, it would be an option.
The only practical solution at this time is DSMIP6 because it deals with the reality of the fact that MNs will be mostly attached via IPv4 and NATed networks.


> Thank you. I think you will realize the complexities of the
> implementation when you go through an exercise of doing so.

I won't. I just don't support DSMIPv6. Reread my email address more
carefully ;-)

Raj> Right... I noticed that already. I dont understand your reasons for not supporting DSMIP6.
Is it only because of the fact that DSMIP6 has to deal with NATs ;) ?
As I said for all practical purposes, implementing only MIP6 by itself is purely an academic exercise.


-Raj