Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [mobile-ip] Piggybacking - DT recommendation]

From: "Glenn Morrow"<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:17:53 -0600

There is no technical merit to the DT's conclusion. As such they need to
find some before a vote is done.

-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [mobile-ip] Piggybacking - DT recommendation]

Hi Hesham,
  I do not know why you restarted the discussion on this. I think that it is
time to vote. Let the cochairs decide on the consensus.

Regards,

Hesham Soliman (ERA) wrote:

2. So far we've seen a concrete paper from Cedric 
   and yourself which upon discussion didn't not 
   result in any significant advantage of piggybacking 
   the BU (please refer to the archives, thread: 
   'more on piggybacking'). So I really don't see 
   why you're against this decision. 

It would certainly be beneficial to update the binding and send a TCP SYN at
the same time - perhaps during a handoff.  What more do you need? I fail to
see how someone could not see this advantage.

=> Sure, but everyone on the other side of the 
argument is saying that you _can_ do that. 
Why does it have to be in the same packet?
L2 can place them in the same frame.

But again I fail to see why this is an 
issue considering point 1 that I sent 
earlier. This _is_ the current working 
assumption that people agreed with. And it's
a good one IMHO.

Hesham

-- 

Behcet

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:16:51 +0100 (CET)

> 
> I disagree with this conclusion and I find it very sad indeed that the IETF
> has knelt before the link layers. Especially when the link layers won't even
> do the route optimization as a mandate.  You might was well move the MIP
> work to one of the other SDO's if this kind of decision making continues.
> 
> Very very sad indeed. Shame on the DT, IMHO.

> find some before a vote is done.

Glenn,

I think the above statements are neither fair, productive, nor get us any
closer to getting to rough consensus.

That said, the design team is trying to untangle the relationships that
involve at least the following factors:
 - piggybacking or not
 - how are BU/RR related message carried (using DOs or something else)
 - using IPsec or something else to secure home registrations
 - using IPsec (we don't know an alternative) to be able to selectively
   secure BU/RR messages between the HA and MN
 - optional use of IPsec between MNs and CNs

We were hoping we could try to untangle the above by first asking the chairs
to see if there is any WG consensus around piggybacking.
So far not many WG participants have commented on the issue (but there is
a fair amount of heat and no light).

So perhaps we need to tack the whole tangled mess above in one fell swoop.
Would that make more sense to you?

  Erik

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:33:50 -0800

Hello Erik,

Erik Nordmark wrote:

>    ...    the design team is trying to untangle the relationships that

First, I think that we have indeed had a reasonable number of working
group members commenting on piggybacking.  Without going back and
checking, I can remember James Kempf, Glenn Morrow, Hesham Soliman,
Behcet Sarikaya, Brian Haley, and Francis Dupont, in addition to members
of the design team.  That's not bad for a few days discussion.

I have tried to be very precise and technical in my discussion about
piggybacking.  I have set out quite a few technical points (and
logical points) that I had hoped would enable further discussion
on the matter.  Maybe you are over-generalizing, but if you truly
feel that my discussion was all heat and no light, then I have to
object, and I very much want to ask you to take another look.

I tried to avoid the heat syndrome.  If I have failed at certain
times, then I can try to do better, but I very much believe that my
discussion on this point is practically all oriented just towards
the technical benefits of piggybacking.

Please let me know.  Better yet, please let me know your responses
to my discussion points on piggybacking.  I still owe Francis a
reply.

> Would that make more sense to you?

I know that you didn't ask me, but I think that we can proceed along
the path that has been started, considering the issues separately as
much as possible.  In the case of piggybacking, this is particularly
important, as it should be clearly disentangled from any considerations
about security.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:49:41 +0100 (CET)

> object, and I very much want to ask you to take another look.

Nobody has brought up any new points (well, except perhaps Kempf's point
about i-mode using something akin to piggybacking but I don't know
if that is a link-layer type thing or an e2e thing) this time around.

Thus there is no more light shining on the issue than there was
after the last round of discussions.

  Erik