[Mip4] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

> Can we add [if
> necessary] like this:
>
> "5.  Propagate Mobile Network Prefix routes via routing protocol if
>      necessary"

OK.

>
>>> The solution described here does not place any restriction on the
>>> number of levels for nested mobility.  But note that this might
>>> introduce significant overhead on the data packets as each level of
>>>  nesting introduces another tunnel header encapsulation.
>>
>> In fairness, it should be noted that this specification is incapable
>>  of detecting loops in such nesting configurations. As a result, I
>> think we should warn the reader about these configurations with
>> stronger language than there is currently.
>
> Ok, how about the following:
>
>        "[...] The solution described here
>     does not place any restriction on the number of levels for
>     nested mobility.  Two issues should be noted though.  First,
>     whenever physical loops occur in a nested aggregation of
>     mobile networks this protocol does neither detect nor solve
>     them - datagram forwarding may be blocked.  Second, Mobile
>     Routers in a deep nested aggregation of mobile networks might
>     introduce significant overhead on the data packets as each
>     level of nesting introduces another tunnel header
>     encapsulation."

OK

>
> Right, the goal is halfway towards the latter.  And I think indeed the
> Mobile-Home auth extension is only used on RegReq/Rep and not on the
> tunnelled packets.
>
> Let's drop the following paragraph(?):
>   "A routing protocol message protected with ESP, and sent through the
>    Mobile Router - Home Agent bidirectional tunnel, SHOULD NOT contain
>    the Mobile IPv4 Mobile-Home Authentication Extension, since ESP
>    provides enough security."

OK

>
>>> The policy of future assignments to this number space should be
>>> following Expert Review.
>>>
>> I believe "Standards Action or IESG Approval" would be more
>> appropriate, for reasons of ensuring interoperability.
>
> Ok, modified it.  For info, the description of "Standards Action",
> "IESG Approval" and "Expert Review" are described in RFC2434 and to
> some extent RFC2780.  Other?

draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis, and you should add
reference to it.

>
> This could be discussed in the context of NEMO FA-extensions draft:
> would it prefer its RegRep Sub-type 'NEMOv4 Tunneling Extension' set
> by the HA allocated by a "Designated Expert"?  By "Standards Action"? 
> or by "IESG Review"?  I'd prefer the middle.

Lets take that up separately. Just change the rules for this draft now.

>
>> Editorial:
>>
>>> Although Mobile IPv4 stated that Mobile Network can be supported by
>>>  the Mobile Router and Home Agent using static configuration or
>>> running a routing protocol, there is no solution
>>
>> I suppose you meant "Although the original Mobile IPv4 specifications
>>  claimed that ..."
>
> Right, modified it to say:
>    "Although the original Mobile IPv4 specifications stated that Mobile
>     Networks can be supported by the Mobile Router and Home Agent using
>     static configuration or running a routing protocol (see Section 4.5
>     of RFC 3344 [RFC3344]),"
Good.

Thanks.

Jari



-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [e-mail]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/