Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft

[Gopal Dommety <[e-mail]>]

My recommendation is to documet the sceanrio and not to solve it.


At 10:35 AM 8/28/2003 +0200, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>The way I tally it, we currently have 2 for (Jayshree, Gopal), 2 against
>(Farid, Henrik) which makes it neither here nor there as far as rough
>consensus goes. We'll have to get some more feedback on this before moving
>on, either way.  Dorothy? Sami? Espen? Milind? Nitsan? Qiang? Others?
>Please comment.
>
>         Regards,
>                 Henrik
>
>Wednesday 27 August 2003, Gopal wrote:
> > Henrik,
> >
> > We should ship this with the added scenario. Do we have an agreement to 
> add
> > the scenario.
> >
> > -Gopal
> >
> > At 12:15 PM 8/26/2003 +0200, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > ><co_chair_hat>
> > >
> > >         I'm picking up this thread and putting it onto the main mip4 
> list.
> > >Please remove the mip-vpn design team list address from future replies.
> > >
> > >I would like to see this draft sent up to the IESG for consideration
> > >ASAP. In case we get (unexpected) pushback, it would be good to get it
> > >before the solutions draft is complete...
> > >
> > >Please respond to Farid's query below, so we can wrap this up. If any
> > >other minor adjustments are needed as a result of the WG last call, I'd
> > >like them done and an updated draft out soon; at which point we will
> > >send it to the ADs. If there are no adjustments to be done, we'll send
> > >up the current draft ( -03 ).
> > >
> > >Let's get's this one shipped, shall we?
> > >
> > ></co_chair_hat>
> > >
> > ><wg_member_hat>
> > >
> > >As Section 2 of the draft explicitly discusses possible placements of HA
> > >vs. VPN-GW, and (as we discussed in the design team) the co-location of
> > >an FA with the VPN-GW is a possible optimization feature of a solution
> > >to the problems posed, rather than a separate problem scenario, my
> > >viewpoint is that we should not put this in the problem statement draft.
> > >
> > >It should be described properly in a vpn-traversal optimization draft,
> > >though.
> > >
> > ></wg_member_hat>
> > >
> > >         Regards,
> > >                 Henrik
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Tuesday, 12 Aug 2003, Farid wrote:
> > > > Hello All,
> > > > What do you think about Jayshree's request to add a new scenario to
> > > > the problem statement draft?
> > > > BR,
> > > > Farid
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jayshree Bharatia [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:13 PM
> > > > To: Adrangi, Farid
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
> > > >
> > > > Hello Farid,
> > > >
> > > > Please see my reply below.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jayshree
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Adrangi, Farid [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 11:50 PM
> > > > To: Bharatia, Jayshree [RICH1:2H13:EXCH]
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Jayshree,
> > > > > Thanks for following up on this.  You, Gopal, and I had a very brief
> > > > > conversation on this during IETF-57 - but I am not sure if we
> > > > > derived any conclusion on whether or not we should include this
> > > > > scenario.  To be frank, I don't quite understand the point behind
> > > > > adding this scenario because,
> > > > > -       It seems to present a solution to a specific deployment
> > > > > model rather than a deployment scenario
> > > >
> > > > [JB] My understanding is different from yours so please elaborate what
> > > > you mean by deployment model vs deployment scenario in this particular
> > > > context.
> > > >
> > > > > -       I don't quite see the advantages of  a combined VPN+FA if it
> > > > > does not support FA traversal and it does not avoid IPsec
> > > > > renegotiation when MN moves from one subnet to another - perhaps you
> > > > > can elaborate on this?
> > > >
> > > > [JB] I think regardless this scenario has any advantages or not, it is
> > > > one of the probable scenario which has potential issues (as you have
> > > > indicated earlier).
> > > >
> > > > > -       Furthermore, Scenarios in section 2 of the problem statement
> > > > > draft represents combinations of MIPv4 HA and VPN gateway placement
> > > > > - adding this scenario is going to change semantics of the section
> > > > > 2.
> > > >
> > > > [JB] I am not sure what you mean by semantics change here. Do you
> > > > think documenting this in new subsection (2.6) is a problem?
> > > >
> > > > > I have no problem adding this scenario to the draft - I just wanted
> > > > > to make sure that we clearly understand the reasons for adding this
> > > > > scenario to the problem statement draft.  Design team members and
> > > > > interested individuals are welcome to express their opinion on this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Farid
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  The   following   sub-sections   introduce   five   representative
> > > >    combinations of MIPv4 HA and VPN gateway placement.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jayshree Bharatia [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:44 PM
> > > > To: Adrangi, Farid
> > > > Cc: '[e-mail]'
> > > > Subject: RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
> > > >
> > > > Hello Farid,
> > > >
> > > > As per our earlier discussion during IETF-57, my understanding is that
> > > > you will include the scenario of co-existed FA with the VPN gateway in
> > > > the VPN Problem Statement draft.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that this particular scenario has problems and it won't work
> > > > if the MN is behind an FA in the foreign subnet. But again, this is a
> > > > problem statement draft. Hence, I believe that this is the appropriate
> > > > document for
> > > > mentioning this scenario.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jayshree
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Adrangi, Farid [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:58 PM
> > > > To: Bharatia, Jayshree [RICH1:2H13:EXCH]
> > > > Cc: '[e-mail]'
> > > > Subject: RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
> > > > Hello Jayshree
> > > > This is a good point - I knew someone was to bring this up!  At the
> > > > time of writing these scenarios, we (the design team) actually
> > > > discussed this and concluded this scenario would fall into a solution
> > > > space.  Maybe we did not make the right decision and we should rethink
> > > > this.  But, before we take this discussion further please allow me to
> > > > ask you a few questions about the details of the scenario (VPN+FA)
> > > > that you have in mind .  Are you thinking to broadcast FA
> > > > advertisements through the IPsec tunnel to the MN?  If so, how will
> > > > this work if MN is already behind an FA in the foreign subnet? Or, If
> > > > you had something different in mind, perhaps you can elaborate on
> > > > that. Best regards,
> > > > Farid
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jayshree Bharatia [mailto:[e-mail]],
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:14 PM
> > > > To: '[e-mail]'
> > > > Cc: '[e-mail]'
> > > > Subject: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
> > > >
> > > > Hello Farid,
> > > > This draft (draft-ietf-mobileip-vpn-problem-statement-req-01)
> > > > currently misses one scenario were the FA is co-existed with the VPN
> > > > Gateway. I would think that there are no technical issues supporting
> > > > this scenario. It will be good if you can add this scenario in the
> > > > draft (perhaps as section 2.6?) for completeness.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jayshree
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Mip4 mailing list
> > >[e-mail]
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
> >
> >
>
>


_______________________________________________
Mip4 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4