Re: [MEXT] New Version Notification fordraft-perkins-mext-hatunaddr-01.txt

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Romain, Charlie,
  I added a new section in

draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm-04.txt

on this. I don't think we need new types, more extensions.

Please check.

Regards,

Behcet
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Romain KUNTZ <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> Hello Charlie,
>
> That's right, I believe the signaling still goes to the primary HA and
> thus can be secured as usual, and as mandated by the MIPv6 spec.
> Beside, the mobile node can choose to send the IPsec'd traffic through its
> primary HA if needed.
>
> Thank you,
> Romain
>
> On Oct 31, 2011, at 15:16, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>
> > Hello again Romain,
> >
> > I didn't have time to do the specification for any
> > new extension for the suggested options revised from
> > RFC 3957.  I'll try to do it later this week, but the
> > result can't be officially submitted until I get to
> > the IETF.
> >
> > Anyway, traffic to/from the mobile node <--> home agent
> > doesn't always have to be protected, especially looking
> > at the relative proportion of data traffic today that
> > is sent via IPsec.  It seems to me that the problem is
> > important, and must be solved, but not a showstopper.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Charlie P.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/28/2011 2:11 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> >> Hello Romain,
> >>
> >> Thank you for reminding me about this point. It had been
> >> raised previously during some related discussions for DMM
> >> late last year, and I plainly forgot to fill in any details
> >> about the problem.
> >>
> >> After looking over RFC 3957, I think the most efficient way
> >> towards solution will be to define a new extension similar
> >> to the Generalized MN-HA Key Generation Nonce Request and
> >> Generalized MN-HA Key Generation Nonce Reply extensions.
> >> It's not a perfect fit, but it's pretty close. If there is
> >> any interest for an IPv4-based solution, I could easily
> >> write up a new subtype for the RFC 3957 (IPv4) extensions.
> >>
> >> The formula for calculating the key in Section 5 needs to be
> >> updated, perhaps to the following:
> >> key = HMAC-SHA1 (HA-key,
> >> {Key Generation Nonce ||
> >> mobile node identifier ||
> >> HA-D IPv6_address})
> >>
> >> A similar formula would apply for any specification
> >> in which the key nonce was generated by AAA instead of
> >> the [control-plane] Home Agent [HA-C].
> >>
> >> The manner in which the HA-D get the corresponding
> >> configuration information doesn't have to be specified
> >> in the ...mext-hatunaddr... draft.
> >>
> >> I'll try to get an updated draft out before the draft
> >> deadline on Monday. Thanks for your comment. While
> >> mostly straightforward, the update will take a pretty
> >> good bit of carefully written text.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Charlie P.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/4/2011 11:39 AM, Romain KUNTZ wrote:
> >>> Hello Charlie,
> >>>
> >>> If the MN has to tunnel data to a different HA than the one to which
> >>> it sends the BU, then it also needs an IPsec SA with that HA. How
> >>> would the MN create such SA as it does not know in advance what HA it
> >>> may use for tunneling? My guess is that the MN is supposed to trust
> >>> the address received in the option and create the SA upon reception of
> >>> the option. Similarly, all of the HA tunneling box would also need to
> >>> be configured with the corresponding SA. Some considerations about
> >>> that may be needed in the draft.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> romain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:20, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> My draft has now made it through the submission process.
> >>>> Please excuse the repeat notification...
> >>>>
> >>>> Comments will be appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Charlie P.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
> >>>> draft-perkins-mext-hatunaddr-01.txt
> >>>> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:58:32 -0700
> >>>> From:<[e-mail]>
> >>>> To:<[e-mail]>
> >>>> CC:<[e-mail]>
> >>>>
> >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-perkins-mext-hatunaddr-01.txt has been
> >>>> successfully submitted by Charles Perkins and posted to the IETF
> >>>> repository.
> >>>>
> >>>> Filename: draft-perkins-mext-hatunaddr
> >>>> Revision: 01
> >>>> Title: Alternate Tunnel Source Address for Home Agent
> >>>> Creation date: 2011-08-03
> >>>> WG ID: Individual Submission
> >>>> Number of pages: 10
> >>>>
> >>>> Abstract:
> >>>> Widely deployed mobility management systems for wireless
> >>>> communications have isolated the path for forwarding data from the
> >>>> control plane signaling for mobility management. To realize this
> >>>> requirement with Mobile IP requires that the control functions of the
> >>>> home agent be addressable at a different IP address than the source
> >>>> IP address of the tunnel between the home agent and mobile node.
> >>>> Similar considerations hold for mobility anchors implementing
> >>>> Hierarchical Mobile IP or PMIP.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The IETF Secretariat
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> MEXT mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> MEXT mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
>