Subject: RE: v4 CoA and route optimization[Re:[Mip6] draft-solimananddraft-wakikawa]

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:47:27 -0400

> Vijay, excuse me interfering in your discussion with Pascal.
 > 
 > Thanks for posting this, it is important to remind that all 
 > Mobile IPv6 
 > RFCs rely on IKE to set up the MN-HA SAs. 

=> That's incorrect. Manual configuration is also possible.

Hesham

 I must also say 
 > that I am not 
 > very familiar with IKE, and even less with IKE's NAT 
 > detection features 
 > and nothing about IPv6 IKEv2.
 > 
 > ALso, please let me point out that if IKEv2 for v4 is 
 > capable of going 
 > through all sorts of NATs, and if using IKEv2 for v4 does 
 > not involve 
 > exchanging too many messages every time MN changes its v4 
 > Address, then 
 > I think I support it, instead of MIP4's NAT traversal scheme.
 > 
 > However, may I also say that the ISAKMP (that I use with my 
 > corporate 
 > VPN, probably similar to yours) (1) uses a 10-message 
 > initial exchange 
 > and (2) uses a fixed outgoing port number for UDP which 
 > seems to be 500.
 > 
 > Shortening the 10-message exchange is probably seen by you 
 > to be done 
 > with RFC3776  or with draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2 (I'm not sure); but both 
 > these drafts are v6-related; or, the NAT traversal should be 
 > v4-related, 
 > and I am not aware of a requirement to use IKE between MN and HA for 
 > MIP4, neither am I aware of a way to shorten the 10-message v4 IKE 
 > exchange.  Enlightenment on this issue would be beneficial.
 > 
 > For the second issue (UDP port 500) I am not sure that all wireless 
 > telecom operators let through this particular port number 
 > (and if they 
 > do, do they without translating the port number?), hence the 
 > potential 
 > need to scan for open ports.  When connecting to a 
 > particular wireless 
 > telecom operator with my corporate VPN, it won't get through 
 > even if I 
 > set the flag "NAT present", even the flag "use port 80".
 > 
 > Can IKEv2 for v4 help with this issue?  Does IKEv2 for v4 has any 
 > reputation of going through all sorts of NAT/NAPTs?
 > 
 > If an implementation of IKEv2 for v4 is able to do this, 
 > then I'm fully 
 > supportive of it.
 > 
 > Alex
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Mip6 mailing list
 > [email-masked]
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
 > 

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

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