IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@point6.net> Wed, 26 April 2006 06:42 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYdjk-0008Hs-Dg; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:42:56 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYdji-0008Hn-0T for mip6@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:42:54 -0400
Received: from laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr ([192.44.77.17]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FYdjg-0007Nf-JH for mip6@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:42:53 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/2004.10.03) with ESMTP id k3Q6gjmC020992; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:42:45 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.77.29]) by laposte.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/2004.09.01) with ESMTP id k3Q6giv6020984; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:42:44 +0200
Received: from givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (localhost.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k3Q6ghWC005034; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:42:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr)
Message-Id: <200604260642.k3Q6ghWC005034@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@point6.net>
To: "Soliman, Hesham" <hsoliman@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [Mip6] WG Last call: draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-06.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:41:14 PDT. <1487A357FD2ED544B8AD29E528FF9DF0023DD4FF@NAEX06.na.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 08:42:43 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at enst-bretagne.fr
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
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

 In your previous mail you wrote:

    > => 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.

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