Subject: [Mip4] RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft

From: "Jayshree Bharatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:43:59 -0500

Hello Farid,
 
As per our earlier discussion during IETF-57, my understanding is that you
will include the scenario of co-existed FA with the VPN gateway in the VPN
Problem Statement draft.
 
I agree that this particular scenario has problems and it won't work if the
MN is behind an FA in the foreign subnet. But again, this is a problem
statement draft. Hence, I believe that this is the appropriate document for
mentioning this scenario.
 
Thanks,
Jayshree
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrangi, Farid [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:58 PM
To: Bharatia, Jayshree [RICH1:2H13:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft

Hello Jayshree

This is a good point - I knew someone was to bring this up!  At the time of
writing these scenarios, we (the design team) actually discussed this and
concluded this scenario would fall into a solution space.  Maybe we did not
make the right decision and we should rethink this.  But, before we take
this discussion further please allow me to ask you a few questions about the
details of the scenario (VPN+FA) that you have in mind .  Are you thinking
to broadcast FA advertisements through the IPsec tunnel to the MN?  If so,
how will this work if MN is already behind an FA in the foreign subnet?  Or,
If you had something different in mind, perhaps you can elaborate on that.

Best regards,

Farid

-----Original Message-----
From: Jayshree Bharatia [mailto:[email-masked]]
<mailto:%5bmailto:[email-masked]%5d> ,
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:14 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Comments on VPN Problem Statement Draft

Hello Farid, 

This draft (draft-ietf-mobileip-vpn-problem-statement-req-01) currently
misses one scenario were the FA is co-existed with the VPN Gateway. I would
think that there are no technical issues supporting this scenario. It will
be good if you can add this scenario in the draft (perhaps as section 2.6?)
for completeness.

Thanks, 
Jayshree