Re: [MEXT] Adoption of MIPv6 Operation with Firewalls draft

BTW, the drafts seem to assume that the MIPv6 messages are not encrypted
(i.e. either ESP with NULL encryption or RFC 4285 is used), so the
firewall can inspect e.g. the MH Type field. (It's even assumed that
return routability messages are not encrypted, something that RFC 3776
or 4877 do not permit.) They also require Mobile IPv6 specific deep
packet inspection. I guess these assumptions are intentional (but at
least the first one isn't very clearly mentioned in the specs), but
they do limit the applicability somewhat.

Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julien Laganier
> Sent: 04 September, 2008 12:10
> To: mext@ietf.org
> Subject: [MEXT] Adoption of MIPv6 Operation with Firewalls draft
> 
> Folks,
> 
> The MEXT WG charter has a "Mobile IPv6 Operation with Firewalls" 
> deliverable, but the WG doesn't have a corresponding draft(s). There 
> are two individual submissions that could be used as basis for the 
> deliverable:
> 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-krishnan-mip6-firewall-admin-04.txt>
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-krishnan-mip6-firewall-vendor-04.txt>
> 
> Hereby we'd like to ask WG participants whether or not we 
> should adopt 
> the two drafts above as MEXT WG drafts for the "Mobile IPv6 Operation 
> with Firewalls" deliverable.
> 
> Please state your opinion on the above before Sep 18th.
> 
> --julien & marcelo, MEXT chairs
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext