Re: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size

"Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)" <georg.hampel@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 21 January 2011 16:13 UTC

From: "Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)" <georg.hampel@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Arnaud Ebalard <arno@natisbad.org>, "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:16:18 -0600
Thread-Topic: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size
Thread-Index: Acu5Qnn+9dPaMpYBS8GtIoosYVfgMQAQSv2w
Message-ID: <154773479ED2314980CB638A48FC44348334D144@USNAVSXCHMBSA2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <154773479ED2314980CB638A48FC44348334CFA2@USNAVSXCHMBSA2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <87d3nq3cp9.fsf@natisbad.org>
In-Reply-To: <87d3nq3cp9.fsf@natisbad.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size
Precedence: list

Hi,

To clarify my prior question: I'm referring to the size of RH2 and HOA headers that are carried on traffic packets during route optimization when MN does not reside in its home network.

I agree with Arnaud's comment that RH2 and HOA can be dropped when peers sustain an IPsec-protected traffic connection.

May concern are traffic connections WITHOUT IPsec protection. This applies to the vast majority of mobile internet traffic. The additional 24B (or 48B if both peers are mobile) for RH2 and/or HOA represent a burden on wireless connections. In principle, the IP addresses carried in these headers could be replaced by a hash or a session identifier. This, of course, creates middle-box traversal issues.

Has this issue been worked somewhere? 

Thanks.

Georg Hampel

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnaud Ebalard [mailto:arno@natisbad.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 3:04 AM
To: Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)
Cc: mext@ietf.org; Klein, Thierry E (Thierry)
Subject: Re: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size

Hi,

"Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)" <georg.hampel@alcatel-lucent.com> writes:

> Is there currently any effort to reduce the mobility header size in
> route optimization? Thanks.

Do you mean the presence of RH2 and HAO in DestOpt in the packets?

If you intend *to use IPsec/IKE between the peers*, I proposed a
solution to remove RH2 and HAO in DestOpt from packets and also the
need for HoTI/HoT in the following draft: 

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ebalard-mext-ipsec-ro-02

For a simple introduction (description, advantages, drawbacks), 

  http://natisbad.org/IRO/

Cheers,

a+

[MEXT] reduce mobility header size Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)
Re: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size Arnaud Ebalard
Re: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size Alexandru Petrescu
Re: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)
Re: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size Laganier, Julien
Re: [MEXT] reduce mobility header size Hampel, K Georg (K Georg)