[Mip4] Summing up: draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-01.txt

"McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann@motorola.com> Tue, 19 December 2006 16:41 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwi1m-0000ZS-Qa; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:41:18 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwi1l-0000Xz-Nt for mip4@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:41:17 -0500
Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com ([216.82.250.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwi1k-0003U4-Dq for mip4@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:41:17 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: pete.mccann@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1166544504!8670744!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8]
Received: (qmail 25777 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2006 16:08:25 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-15.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2006 16:08:25 -0000
Received: from il06exr04.mot.com (il06exr04.mot.com [129.188.137.134]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id kBJG8OcU018769 for <mip4@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:08:24 -0700 (MST)
Received: from de01exm67.ds.mot.com (de01exm67.am.mot.com [10.176.8.18]) by il06exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id kBJG8OSu029835 for <mip4@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:08:24 -0600 (CST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:08:23 -0500
Message-ID: <BE4B07D4197BF34EB3B753DD34EBCD130133C9B2@de01exm67.ds.mot.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Summing up: draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-01.txt
Thread-Index: Accjh+ikWUL9hq+yRkKMiEpp5RlO3A==
From: McCann Peter-A001034 <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
To: mip4@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Subject: [Mip4] Summing up: draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-01.txt
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mip4-bounces@ietf.org

Here is an attempted round-up of the issues that have been discussed:

1. Use of an FA

If the MN is on the trusted network, then an FA can be used.
There was a proposal from Vidya to put in the following text:

   "If the MN is moving from an untrusted network, it needs to first
acquire an IP address, try
    reaching the HA with it; if the HA is not reachable, use that
address as the VPN 
    tunnel outer address; if it is reachable, either operate in CCoA
mode or then use an FA 
    and re-register with the FA. OTOH, if the MN is moving from a
trusted network, it may 
    use an FA first; determine that the HA is unreachable, subsequently
acquire an IP 
    address and set up a VPN. "

However, there was a complaint that this might be over-specification.
Can the MN attempt to use an FA before it determines that it is on a
trusted network?  It seems to me that this is ok, the Registration Reply
will contain the MN-HA Authenticator if the FA can reach the HA,
otherwise
the MN will get no response or a response that fails the Authentication
check.
Personally I don't see the difference between the case of starting on an
untrusted
network vs. starting on the trusted network: the procedure could be the
same.

2. Bypass VPN for Registration Requests

There was discussion on whether it is feasible to bypass a VPN tunnel 
for the Registration Request.  I think the discussion concluded that
it was possible, but perhaps some text needs to be added describing
the SAD.  Does anyone have some concrete text to propose?

3. Security considerations for exposing the Registration Request

This one seems pretty simple, there is a short list of concerns that
could be written into the draft.  Vijay, can you draft some text?

Anything else outstanding that I missed?

-Pete

-- 
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/