Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Fri, 29 August 2003 02:45 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 WAA14681 for <mip4-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 22:45:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19sWoA-0004Lu-4V for mip4-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:08:06 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h7T086KE016726 for mip4-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:08:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19sVlj-0001QK-Sy for mip4-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:01:32 -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 TAA28074 for <mip4-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19sVld-00011R-00 for mip4-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:01:25 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19sVld-00011O-00 for mip4-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:01:25 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19sRy5-0007LG-Pg; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:58:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19sQbv-0002ha-Vs for mip4@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:31:04 -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 NAA02924 for <mip4@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19sQbt-0003TB-00 for mip4@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:31:01 -0400
Received: from h195n1fls311o871.telia.com ([213.64.174.195] helo=riesling.local.levkowetz.com) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19sQbs-0003Sr-00 for mip4@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:31:00 -0400
Received: (qmail 4009 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2003 17:30:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO riesling) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Aug 2003 17:30:23 -0000
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:30:22 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
To: Gopal Dommety <gdommety@cisco.com>
Cc: mip4@ietf.org, "Adrangi, Farid" <farid.adrangi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft
Message-Id: <20030828193022.0582fb2a.henrik@levkowetz.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030828094448.0297c7b0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030827161646.02827e70@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> <A95D547FCC54AB47BC55E104D424339BF11E35@orsmsx407.jf.intel.com> <A95D547FCC54AB47BC55E104D424339BF11E35@orsmsx407.jf.intel.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030827161646.02827e70@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030828094448.0297c7b0@mira-sjcm-3.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.0claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="=.2C,u79PMpHe:8E"
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>
But the way I understand it, this scenario is not a problem, but rather a component in one of the possible (optimized) solutions, which is why it doesn't quite make sense to me to put it in the problem statement ? Henrik Thursday 28 August 2003, Gopal wrote: > > My recommendation is to documet the sceanrio and not to solve it. > > > At 10:35 AM 8/28/2003 +0200, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > >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: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] 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