Re: [MEXT] Rethink on Mobile IPv6

With respect to the deployment of Mobile IPv6.

I just wanted to add to this thread the fact that a "Mobile IPv6
(EXPERIMENTAL)" button exists since some time now in the main linux
kernel.  This is a great achievement for the Mobile IPv6 community, I think.

Alex

Le 03/03/2010 16:55, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com a écrit :
>
> 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
>