Re: [shim6] Deployment experience with Shim6 and MIPv6?

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 22 December 2011 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF90F21F85C7 for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:32:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aqJzlCZA0ZP3 for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6409121F85A1 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:32:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0677B2CC4D; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:32:26 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jOlqW1WBPk4l; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:32:24 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03132CC31; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:32:24 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <4EF32358.30903@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:32:24 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111110 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sebastien.barre@uclouvain.be
References: <00d401ccc0a3$c68774b0$53965e10$@it.uc3m.es>
In-Reply-To: <00d401ccc0a3$c68774b0$53965e10$@it.uc3m.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 'shim6' <shim6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [shim6] Deployment experience with Shim6 and MIPv6?
X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List <shim6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shim6>
List-Post: <mailto:shim6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:32:30 -0000

Sebastien: This would be interesting information, if you can tell about your experiences we'd love to know.

Jari

On 22.12.2011 14:18, Alberto García wrote:
>
> Hi Sebastien,
>
> In his review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-02.txt), Jari has raised a comment about the experience on Shim6 and MIPv6 combinations, and IPsec:
>
> | [Jari Arkko said:]
>
> |
>
> | Section 7 should indicate if there is any implementation of deployment
>
> | experience with these combinations. I'm doubtful on whether all the ipsec
>
> | layering mechanisms and so on would actually work in real implementations
>
> | without someone having tested such combinations.
>
> I think you worked on a ‘MipShim6’ code, and there is a paper in French describing the tests. As far as I understand from the paper, you tested the scenario described in 7.1.1 in draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-02, and I think it worked. Is this right?
>
> I’m not sure if you tested the scenario described in 7.1.2.
>
> Besides, I’m not sure about the IPsec configuration used for the tests (or if IPsec could not be used at all in your implementation).
>
> Can you provide us some information on this subject?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Alberto
>