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

["Qiang Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Figure 10 in the Section 4 of problem statement actually presented the
scenario. I think it is reasonable to add a 2.6 to make this scenario
explicit thus to "complete" as Gopal mentioned.

Q

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gopal Dommety" <[e-mail]>
To: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; "Adrangi, Farid"
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Re: FW: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft


> 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:[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
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mip4 mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
> > >
> >
> >
>



_______________________________________________
Mip4 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4