Subject: Re: (CLARIFICATION) Re: [mobile-ip] Routing headers: design team recommendation

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:45:06 +0100 (CET)

> => this is less complex to add 2 to the RH type than to specify
> a new DO. The argument was about ADA or RH with IPsec: there is
> no difference so IPsec cannot be used in order to decide between them.

I think your point is about the difficulty of changing the implementations,
where I agree that changing the RH type is really easy.

I think that is very different than the resulting total complexity
of MIPv6.

  Erik

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:08:47 +0100

=> implementations and specifications (i.e. minimal changes).

=> I don't expect someone will disagree.

=> the real issue (how to mix routing and MIPv6) is out of the scope
(because this is too related to mobile routers) but this is the only
point where we can find a real difference between proposals.
IMHO the tradeoff is between RH and D/Z tunnels, i.e. what is the best
feature for policy routing and co, source routing or tunneling?
I believe this is the second because VPNs are not only a fashion,
but this implies we really consider interactions between D/Z tunnels
and IPsec. I know what to write about this but I have to find the time
and the good way to involve IPsec people in the discussion.

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 23:49:51 +0200 (EET)

> and the good way to involve IPsec people in the discussion.

I think one significant issue here is how HAO would be handled: if D/Z
tunneling would be the way to go there, in my book that would make D/Z
more attractive for RH too..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords