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

> which solution? draft-devarapalli-mip4-mobike-connectivity-00.txt
> is definitely not targeting this. it is only addressing a 
> scenario where IKEv2 IPsec VPNs with MOBIKE support are used. 
> it is doing this because there are some immediate use cases.
> 

OK.  I read the following and interpreted the draft proposed a solution
that addressed the identified shortcomings of x-MIP draft.

draft-devarapalli-mip4-mobike-connectivity-00.txt:

   "There has been some work done on using Mobile IPv4 and IPsec VPNs to
   provide roaming and secure connectivity to an enterprise [10].  The
   solution described in [10] was designed with certain restrictions,
   including requiring no modifications to the VPN gateways and involves
   the use of two layers of MIPv4, with one Home Agent inside the
   intranet and one in the Internet or in the DMZ before the VPN
   gateway.  The per-packet overhead is very high in this solution.  It
   is also challenging to implement and have two instances of MIPv4
   active at the same time on a mobile node. 

   This document describes an alternate solution that does not require
   two layers of MIPv4.  "

Then later, I see your clarification stated later.  OK.

   "The solution described in this document uses
   Mobile IPv4 when the mobile node is on the trusted network and MOBIKE
   capable IPsec VPNs when mobile node is on the untrusted network. "

> however, I would support an effort to define requirements for 
> a more optimal solution involving MIPv4 and *any kind* of VPN 
> gateway and encourage MIPv4 WG to look into an optimal solution.
> 

OK.  Should this draft be under the scope of such general solution?  A
IKEv2/MOBIKE VPN GW is a specific type of "any kind" of VPN GW, right?
:)  

Kent

-- 
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/