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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
>