IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Mip6] WG Last call: draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-06.txt

"Soliman, Hesham" <hsoliman@qualcomm.com> Wed, 26 April 2006 15:58 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYmPc-0006td-9Y; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:58:44 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYmPb-0006tX-KS for mip6@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:58:43 -0400
Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYmPa-0004LJ-74 for mip6@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:58:43 -0400
Received: from neophyte.qualcomm.com (neophyte.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.149]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id k3QFwYWv022263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:58:35 -0700
Received: from NAEXBR04.na.qualcomm.com (naexbr04.qualcomm.com [10.46.141.42]) by neophyte.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id k3QFwXk4021482; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAEX06.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.135.161]) by NAEXBR04.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:58:33 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Mip6] WG Last call: draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-06.txt
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:58:32 -0700
Message-ID: <1487A357FD2ED544B8AD29E528FF9DF00247DC98@NAEX06.na.qualcomm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Mip6] WG Last call: draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-06.txt
Thread-Index: AcZo/LOrCteh6ActSuWyR+fr/41XHQATUqMA
From: "Soliman, Hesham" <hsoliman@qualcomm.com>
To: Francis.Dupont@point6.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2006 15:58:33.0139 (UTC) FILETIME=[44EB1030:01C6694A]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: Gopal Dommety <gdommety@cisco.com>, mip6@ietf.org, jari.arkko@ericsson.com, Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nokia.com>
X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mip6.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org


 >     > => so your proposal is some kind of "transport all" 
 > mode. I am not
 >     > in favor of it because it adds a HAO to every packets. 
 > If we consider
 >     > the HAO as a degenerate tunnel, it is a spurious 
 > double tunneling.
 >    
 >    => Well, if someone is bothered by the additional bits,
 > 
 > => this is not my concern (this is already a tunnel so to avoid MTU
 > madness the internal packet will be limited to 1280, the extra header
 > doesn't really matter). I don't like the transport all mode for
 > architectural reasons.

=> Ok. can you please elaborate? I know you never liked it
but I don't know what the architectural reasons are. I think
it's a more "correct" use of IPsec to not use tunnel mode
between two end nodes. IMO tunnel mode only needs to be used
when an intermediate node is terminating/initiating IPsec. 

Hesham

 > 
 > Regards
 >    
 > Francis.Dupont@point6.net
 > 
 > PS: my concern is specific to MIPv6/NEMO, look at my comment about
 > draft-ietf-v6ops-ipsec-tunnels-02.txt for the other cases.
 > 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email