IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MEXT] using MR-HA tunnel vs. combining BU // Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt

Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com> Fri, 19 December 2008 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: monami6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-monami6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5733A6A21; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0D13A6A21 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u9hoNSHCsKJC for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875C93A6A16 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so999332wfd.31 for <mext@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:in-reply-to:subject :references:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:date:cc:x-mailer; bh=eAlxWg1buefbxUsFGa+VlgV0x98da/5zv+cwp8rCbVs=; b=Sf/rE6/SR4T6W5Z+jHM/lo7jaBBjHSD2yYDrejI5rlqpo0RBVYhuUcPGH1BaO0V7qc 9qJeG1LndzQbmNGadU3o4sQ2xYlex7eaZlIOu9Arek/2jWosi7ifLxKim3niT/jckhrG Ejt9WtGVBsCMlFFhhR5EuksMj+6YwodvWh2sE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:in-reply-to:subject:references:message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc:x-mailer; b=xqAaFw68TyUYy7SbpLi5YPuN3B3asDyZlZiFaSWVjvH4sL50t3024oJzncw4DcBZP4 FQbnE9FPopYCxDy6HT/uET+xg8RGK+x5o+sU/gtd3IzLGtNaZRxxcMAjW2xcLSs85NzV 9djDdx0ku7BjrRnoquxOLVKKECksHOMhNEFGo=
Received: by 10.143.39.16 with SMTP id r16mr1239757wfj.172.1229680216879; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?172.17.105.34? (yamate242.jp.toyota-itc.com [61.200.198.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 32sm13899805wfa.0.2008.12.19.01.50.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:50:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.laganier.ietf@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200812171022.06418.julien.laganier.IETF@googlemail.com>
References: <491039B9.6090400@it.uc3m.es> <494646EB.4050203@gmail.com> <BBC68096-AF76-471B-B45C-6C407F1EF8A8@gmail.com> <200812171022.06418.julien.laganier.IETF@googlemail.com>
Message-Id: <1F4169B7-D6AF-4B54-9944-1E0B0ADD561C@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:50:13 +0900
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: mext <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] using MR-HA tunnel vs. combining BU // Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org

Julien,


On 2008/12/17, at 18:22, Julien Laganier wrote:

> Ryuji,
>
> On Wednesday 17 December 2008, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
>> I guess the reason of using tunnel is security.
>> We don't have any secured mechanism for protecting DHCP unicast
>> message. In NEMO nor MIP, IPsec SA is not created for DHCP-unicast
>> messages.
>>
>> MR cannot trust the unprotected DHCP message for its MNP..
>
> With MIPv6 there's already the requirement that a certain number of
> IPsec SAs are cinfigured between the MN and the HA, thus I don't see
> any problem with requiring a few more to protect DHCP signaling
> exchanged between the MR and HA.

I answered to Alex's mail about IPsec protection.

Again, I think the use of BU/BA for prefix delegation is much simpler  
and easier.
We now have an example to delegate a prefix to a mobile host by PBU/PBA.

ryuji


>
>
> --julien

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email