Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
Gopal Dommety <gdommety@cisco.com> Fri, 29 August 2003 03:23 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA18078 for <mip4-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:23:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19sWws-000508-EZ for mip4-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:17:06 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h7T0H6H1019214 for mip4-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:17:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19sVQE-0000ru-Fd for mip4-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:39:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26571 for <mip4-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:39:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19sVQB-0000hO-00 for mip4-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:39:15 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19sVQB-0000hL-00 for mip4-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:39:15 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19sSXv-0000RJ-LS; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:35:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19sPtf-0000ii-LA for mip4@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:45:20 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA29258 for <mip4@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:45:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19sPtd-0002Yb-00 for mip4@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:45:17 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19sPtd-0002Y1-00 for mip4@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:45:17 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2003 09:44:47 -0700
Received: from gdommety-w2k01.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-533.cisco.com [10.21.66.21]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h7SGibgN023964; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030828094129.0286abc8@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com>
X-Sender: gdommety@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:44:35 -0700
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
From: Gopal Dommety <gdommety@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
Cc: ietf-mip-vpn@liqwidnet.com, mip4@ietf.org, "Adrangi, Farid" <farid.adrangi@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030828102359.70279f6c.henrik@levkowetz.com>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030827161326.028205d0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> <A95D547FCC54AB47BC55E104D424339BF11E35@orsmsx407.jf.intel.com> <A95D547FCC54AB47BC55E104D424339BF11E35@orsmsx407.jf.intel.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030827161326.028205d0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: mip4-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mip4-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mip4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Henrik, No!!! My recommendation is to document the scenario and state that we are not focus on it currently. I think documenting completes the scenarios. I think there will be a lot of issues to solve for this scenario. Cheers Gopal At 10:23 AM 8/28/2003 +0200, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >Hi Gopal, > >So you see this scenario as one of the possible problem scenarios we >potentially would need to solve? > > Henrik > >Wednesday 27 August 2003, Gopal wrote: > > Farid and Henrik, > > > > It would make sense to add the scenario that jayshree was bringing > > up. This was what I was bringing up during the initial discussion. > > > > -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:jayshree@nortelnetworks.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:13 PM > > > > To: Adrangi, Farid > > > > Cc: mip4@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft > > > > > > > > Hello Farid, > > > > > > > > Please see my reply below. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jayshree > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Adrangi, Farid [mailto:farid.adrangi@intel.com] > > > > Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 11:50 PM > > > > To: Bharatia, Jayshree [RICH1:2H13:EXCH] > > > > Cc: mip4@ietf.org > > > > 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:jayshree@nortelnetworks.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:44 PM > > > > To: Adrangi, Farid > > > > Cc: 'mip4@ietf.org' > > > > 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:farid.adrangi@intel.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:58 PM > > > > To: Bharatia, Jayshree [RICH1:2H13:EXCH] > > > > Cc: 'mobile-ip@sunroof.eng.sun.com' > > > > 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:jayshree@nortelnetworks.com], > > > > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:14 PM > > > > To: 'farid.adrangi@intel.com' > > > > Cc: 'mobile-ip@sunroof.eng.sun.com' > > > > 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 > > >Mip4@ietf.org > > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mip4 mailing list > > Mip4@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4 > > > > _______________________________________________ Mip4 mailing list Mip4@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
- [Mip4] RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft Jayshree Bharatia
- [Mip4] RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft Adrangi, Farid
- [Mip4] RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft Jayshree Bharatia
- [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statement … Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statem… Gopal Dommety
- Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statem… Gopal Dommety
- Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statem… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statem… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statem… Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statem… Gopal Dommety
- Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statem… Gopal Dommety
- Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statem… Qiang Zhang