Subject: RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:56:39 +0200

| If most deployments don't have an issue with the placement of the HA
in
| the DMZ and a small percentage of the cases do, it does not seem too
bad
| to me to say that a solution is simple since it solves the 90% case.
I'd
| vote for that rather than make it really complex to also solve the 10%
| case.
| 

Hi Vidya

I see words about complexity from you and Keiichi. I agree we need to
look at how complex the proposals are:
- in terms of standardization
- in terms of coding
- and mostly in terms of deployment

Obviously, a solution that has less constraints is easier to deploy.
Ending the IPv4 at the HA is a constraint. We have experiments with
customers who could not do that for very pragmatic reasons. Details
might be given mater.

In terms of coding, I guess that people have to read and understand all
proposals on the table before they can assess that one thing is more
complex than another. I would assert that a solution that does not
change the home agent causes less regression testing then one that does.
For instance, Doors is a very small footprint hack that leaves the end
to end MIP untouched.

In terms of standardization, I'd guess that the same applies. Changing
MIP inside is not as simple as changing it on the surface. Doors just
acts on the transport. The Doors gateway can be installed on the HA,
close to the HA, or by an external provider anywhere.

I'd just suggest that we, as a group, do not presuppose that because
Doors provides additional features it is necessarily more complex.
Sometimes, simplicity brings a lot of good things with it.

Pascal

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 18:40:26 +0300 (EEST)

> - and mostly in terms of deployment

Don't forget IPR encumburances (if any).

A mechanisms without IPR claims is much more likely to actually get 
implemented by certain communities.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:27:11 +0900

Hello Pascal

At Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:56:39 +0200,
> - and mostly in terms of deployment

Hmm, I feel that Doors, itself, is complicated.  

My major comments to Doors are
- Doors brought security vulenerability in terms of IP header
  modification at intermediate gateways. Do we really want another NAT
  like mechanism in IPv6?
- IPsec operation is not clear to me.

> customers who could not do that for very pragmatic reasons. Details

You customers are not only clients using MIP6:-) 
There are also requirements such as no infrastructure support and
less tunnel overheads. I don't have customers like cisco, but I know
there are companies seeking a solution for the requirements.

> For instance, Doors is a very small footprint hack that leaves the end

Goal of Doors and our solution is cleary different. We assume
different deployment scenarios. We should not compare doors or other
transition mechanism in this thread.

> Sometimes, simplicity brings a lot of good things with it.

Agree. I always like similicity:-)
ryuji