RE: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6
Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com> Mon, 24 November 2003 23:22 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10574 for <mipshop-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:22:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOQ1q-0002WK-On for mipshop-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:22:02 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAONM2cC009682 for mipshop-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:22:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOQ1q-0002W5-KA for mipshop-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:22:02 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10544 for <mipshop-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:21:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOQ1n-0000Wc-00 for mipshop-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:21:59 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOQ1n-0000WY-00 for mipshop-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:21:59 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOQ1p-0002Uf-Hr; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:22:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AOQ1a-0002Tl-W2 for mipshop@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:21:47 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10527 for <mipshop@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:21:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOQ1X-0000W6-00 for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:21:43 -0500
Received: from mail.flarion.com ([63.103.94.23] helo=ftmail.lab.flarion.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AOQ1X-0000Vh-00 for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:21:43 -0500
Received: by ftmail.lab.flarion.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <XH6HA4AQ>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:21:06 -0500
Message-ID: <9E3BA3946476AD4EB94672712B12A85F042022@ftmail.lab.flarion.com>
From: Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>
To: 'James Kempf' <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>, gab@sun.com, mipshop@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:20:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: mipshop-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mipshop-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <mipshop.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
> > This section doesn't quite nail the full > > mechanism down. Nevertheless, it assumes that IKE will be used, > > although there are issues with it actually working fine (like > > using the RCoA as the identity in Phase 2, even though this > > configuration would be harder to achieve than currently in > > MIPv6 in which the well-known and somewhat static home > address allows > > its use as phase 2 identity. I don't think this will be directly > applicable to > > securing a MAP in which the RCoA will not have anything permanent > > with regards to any given MN in particular. I'm not advocating > > solving the full problem, just softening the language a > bit ("it could > work > > like this..."). > > > > I think this could work with IKEv2, but it would require an > effort on the > order of that for draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec-06.txt > to specify it > and therefore should be left to MOBOPTS. > > As the draft currently stands, however, I agree that it > would essentially > require a statically configured RCoA; => I don't think it needs to be statically configured. If I understand Gab's comment correctly, he's saying that IKE needs to know about the RCoA that the MN picked in order to use it in Phase 2. I.e. some exchange of information locally within the MN (and the same in the MAP to verify that the RCoA is not already allocated to someone else). There is no research to be done AFAICS, it's an implementation issue. Gab please let me know if I misinterpreted your comment. Hesham _______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
- RE: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 Soliman Hesham
- Re: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 gabriel montenegro
- RE: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 Soliman Hesham
- Re: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 gabriel montenegro
- RE: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 Soliman Hesham
- Re: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 gabriel montenegro
- RE: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 Soliman Hesham
- Re: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 gabriel montenegro
- Re: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 James Kempf
- Re: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 James Kempf
- RE: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 Soliman Hesham
- Re: [Mipshop] 2 more WG LC comments on hmipv6 James Kempf