[netext] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


I have two questions. They could be easy or hard, I'm not
sure:-) Apologies in advance if I've forgotten what little I
ever knew about PMIPv6 and gotten stuff wrong here. 

(1) PMIPv6 traffic between MAG and LMA is generally assumed to
be protected via IPsec, right? Assuming that's actually done,
does figure 1 here indicate a weakening of security since it
shows that IP encapsulation is used between MAG-UP and LMA-UP
without any mention of IPsec. Is that downgrading security? I
get that the binding messages are the most important and will
presumably continue on the control plane but what else changes?

(2) How does the rest of the Internet know to use the LMA-UP
for the MN and not the LMA-CP? Sorry for being dense but I
don't see how packets from a random Internet node for the MN
end up going down the user plane.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Did you need to say somewhere which PMIPv6 messages are to be
sent in the control plane and which in the user plane? That
might be obvious to some, but its not to me and I guess there
are a bunch of PMIPv6 extensions so I could imagine that
someone somewhere might get it wrong.