IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: CGA-based HoA generation for MIP6 (was RE: [Mipshop] Review of draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-04)

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 15 August 2006 12:38 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCyBT-0006IF-W2; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:38:15 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCyBT-0006IA-6B for mipshop@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:38:15 -0400
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([193.234.218.130]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GCyBR-00075b-T5 for mipshop@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:38:15 -0400
Received: from p130.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECA489884; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:38:13 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51FF8984E; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:38:12 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <44E1C024.8020103@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:37:56 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8 (X11/20060725)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Vogt <chvogt@tm.uka.de>
Subject: Re: CGA-based HoA generation for MIP6 (was RE: [Mipshop] Review of draft-arkko-mipshop-cga-cba-04)
References: <C24CB51D5AA800449982D9BCB903251311A60A@NAEX13.na.qualcomm.com> <44E1AB09.2070904@tm.uka.de>
In-Reply-To: <44E1AB09.2070904@tm.uka.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: mipshop@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mipshop.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org

Christian Vogt wrote:

>From a security perspective, I don't currently see a requirement for the
>HA to know that the HoA is CGA-based, given that all MN-HA security is
>IPsec-based:
>
Agreed.

>From a practical standpoint, there may be a benefit for the HA to know
>that the MN's HoA is CGA-based. 
>  
>
Its possible to design mechanisms that employ the same
tools also for the home agent registrations, or use the
help of the home agent in the RO process. Such mechanisms
would likely have some advantages. OTOH, there is also
some value in keeping the two RO and HA registration
mechanisms separate. E.g., you don't have to sync HA and
MN code updates. IKEv2, auth option, and RFC 3776 all
can support CGAs, though some with extra config effort.

--Jari


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email