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

I believe there are a couple of other things that Vijay already
suggested text for (Reverse tunneling; lack of mobility in VPN bypass
mode). One issue that I think is still open is support for multiple
interfaces (simultaneous bindings clarification). 

Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McCann Peter-A001034 [mailto:pete.mccann@motorola.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:08 AM
> To: mip4@ietf.org
> Subject: [Mip4] Summing up: draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-01.txt
> 
> 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/
> 

-- 
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/