Re: [Mip4] review of draft-devarapalli-mip4-mobike-connectivity-00.txt

Sami Vaarala wrote:

>The problem I see w.r.t. to using IKEv2/MOBIKE is that it does
>not, alone, match the current problem statement.  The assumption
>made in draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-statement-03.txt is that
>existing deployed VPN infrastructure should be used (see e.g.
>Section 5.1).
>  
>
Yes. I still view that as the main and most urgent
use case, so the problem statement is OK. However,
I believe we are also at a situation where we can
see future deployments (particularly those based on
IKEv2) start to do new things. I don't see a problem
with pursuing two tracks simultaneously. Its not
like they would be two redundant solutions, its more
like points in different stages of evolution.

>If we decide that there is no deployment issue w.r.t. MIPv4 and
>already deployed VPNs, we should IMO take a larger view of
>improving MIPv4/VPN coexistence.  Minimizing overlap between
>the two mechanisms would give a much better solution.  For
>instance, there is room for improvement in MIPv4 packet overhead,
>MIPv4/VPN compression interactions, and integrated MIPv4/VPN
>packet authentication.
>
I believe we will eventually get there. Probably step
by step, however. I view Vijay's draft one of those
steps... eliminating one unnecessary level in the stack.
Or are you arguing that we should spend more time thinking
what to do, if we discard the no-changes-at-all
assumption?

--Jari

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org
    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/