[Mobopts] Review: FW: draft-weniger-mobopts-mip6-cnlocpriv-01.txt
Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@nokia.com> Fri, 04 May 2007 16:36 UTC
Return-path: <mobopts-bounces@irtf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hk0lo-0006Ey-CJ; Fri, 04 May 2007 12:36:36 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hk0lm-0006Et-Uh for mobopts@irtf.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 12:36:34 -0400
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.171] helo=mgw-ext12.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hk0lm-0003rk-7I for mobopts@irtf.org; Fri, 04 May 2007 12:36:34 -0400
Received: from esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh108.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.145]) by mgw-ext12.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l44GaKBs009529 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2007 19:36:30 +0300
Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh108.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 4 May 2007 19:36:16 +0300
Received: from daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.24]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 4 May 2007 11:36:12 -0500
Received: from 10.241.59.113 ([10.241.59.113]) by daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.24]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 4 May 2007 16:36:12 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.4.060510
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:36:46 -0700
From: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@nokia.com>
To: "mobopts@irtf.org" <mobopts@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <C260AF2E.100C6%rajeev.koodli@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: Review: FW: draft-weniger-mobopts-mip6-cnlocpriv-01.txt
Thread-Index: AceGVZMYKEOIKNVhQiCB01hXqVMQhwIFNSOa
In-Reply-To: <462DD1A0.5070005@azairenet.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2007 16:36:12.0182 (UTC) FILETIME=[537E6B60:01C78E6A]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 202a3ece0492a8c7e7c8672d5214398f
Subject: [Mobopts] Review: FW: draft-weniger-mobopts-mip6-cnlocpriv-01.txt
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0244497874=="
Errors-To: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
Hello, I had asked for a review of this draft. Vijay and Kuntal have provided their input. I am forwarding their reviews and Kilian¹s responses. Regards, -Rajeev ------ Forwarded Message From: ext Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli@AzaireNet.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:45:04 -0500 To: "Koodli Rajeev (NSN - US/Palo Alto)" <rajeev.koodli@nokia.com> Cc: "ext Chowdhury, Kuntal" <kchowdhury@starentnetworks.com>, ext Kilian Weniger <Kilian.Weniger@eu.panasonic.com> Conversation: draft-weniger-mobopts-mip6-cnlocpriv-01.txt Subject: Re: draft-weniger-mobopts-mip6-cnlocpriv-01.txt I looked at this draft again. I have a few concerns. This draft assumes that the mobile node is able to bootstrap a home agent close to the CN. This is a *big* assumption since it is not know what kind of CNs the MN might have sessions with and if it is possible to always find an ORHA close to the CN. The draft punts the problem to MIP6 bootstrapping solutions, but the MIP6 bootstrapping solutions do assume some kind of trust between the MN and the domain hosting the HA. The bootstrapping solutions do not assume scenarios where the HAs are selected from arbitrary domains. How close is the ORHA to the CN? The ORHA does know the real CoA of the MN. If the ORHA and the CN are in the same domain then the CN could potentially get the MN information from the ORHA. I also would like to know if this draft belongs in mobopts? To describe this draft briefly, the solution involves configuring a home agent (ORHA) close to the CN using MIP6 bootstrapping solutions and using the ORHA (either through bi-direction tunneling or using route optimization between the MN and the ORHA) to route the packets to the CN. If this is the right way to have Route Optimization with location privacy with a CN, perhaps it should be taken directly to the MIP6 or MIPSHOP WGs? Do we want people to experiment with this solution before standardizing this in the IETF? In fact this solution being proposed depends more on deployment considerations (having an ORHA close to the CN). Vijay Rajeev Koodli wrote: > Hi Vijay and Kuntal, > > I spoke to you guys about this draft. I am interested in your feedback on > this draft which proposes to hide the location of a MN from a CN using an > agent "closer to a CN". Could you please take a look at the draft and let me > know your thoughts? > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mip6/draft-weniger-mobopts-mip6-cnlocpriv-01.txt > > > Thanks, > > -Rajeev > ------ End of Forwarded Message
_______________________________________________ Mobopts mailing list Mobopts@irtf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
- [Mobopts] Review: FW: draft-weniger-mobopts-mip6-… Rajeev Koodli
- [Mobopts] Review: FW: draft-weniger-mobopts-mip6-… Rajeev Koodli