[shim6] Deployment experience with Shim6 and MIPv6?

Alberto García <alberto@it.uc3m.es> Thu, 22 December 2011 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <alberto@it.uc3m.es>
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 1C8A021F8A6C for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:18:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 R-eR5LFmIeE5 for <shim6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:18:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.176.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBBE221F8A56 for <shim6@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:18:15 -0800 (PST)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from BOMBO (unknown [163.117.139.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB4B9C5F53; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:18:11 +0100 (CET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Alberto_Garc=EDa?= <alberto@it.uc3m.es>
To: <sebastien.barre@uclouvain.be>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:18:12 +0100
Message-ID: <00d401ccc0a3$c68774b0$53965e10$@it.uc3m.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D5_01CCC0AC.284CEE20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
thread-index: AczAk05k4AhTkjfCT0KxlqVS2qfXyA==
Content-Language: es
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18598.007
Cc: 'shim6' <shim6@ietf.org>
Subject: [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 12:18:17 -0000

Hi Sebastien,

 

In his review of draft-garcia-shim6-applicability (
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-02.txt>
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