Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc. in wireless networks

[Hesham Soliman <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, I agree 100% with Julien.
First, access authentication and HA auth are two completely different
issues for different purposes. Second, I don't think MIPv6 is not deployed
because it adds a one-off SA setup with the HA. I wish that was the
reason. 

Hesham



-----Original Message-----
From: Julien Laganier <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:39:33 -0700
To: Pete McCann <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>rg>, mext <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Well-known problem with authentication/etc. in
wireless networks

>Hi Pete,
>
>On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Pete McCann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi, Julien,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Julien Laganier
>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Yes, EAP authentication for IKEv2. Yes the MN needs to attach to the
>>> network first, as hosts currently do today already.
>>
>> Right.  I think Charlie was asking whether MIP could be the network
>>access
>> authentication protocol.
>>
>>>> It may be interesting to look at whether access authentication and
>>>>mobility
>>>> management can be combined.
>>>
>>> I don' t know what problem we would be solving by combining the two.
>>
>> Making initial establishment of the SA with the HA (upon network
>>attachment)
>> more efficient. Making handovers faster and more efficient by reducing
>>the
>> number of round-trip messages required.
>
>In the context of this discussion, optimizing Mobile IPv6 handover
>speed seems to imply that slowness of those is the root cause of that
>lack of MIPv6 deployment, which I don' t think is the case. On the
>other hand, coupling network access authentication with mobility
>management would arguably reduces deployment flexibility and thus harm
>rather than help potential MIPv6 deployments.
>
>Thus I am still not sure what the problem is.
>
>--julien
>_______________________________________________
>MEXT mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext