Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Proposed Resolutions to Last Call Comments on Reg ional Tunneling Draft

From: "Alan O'Neill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 22:41:26 -0400

Hi Phil,

One of the specific requests from Flarion during last call was to separate
the standardisation of the regional signalling plane (the ability to
statically or dynamically route MIP via an intermediate (in this case
regional) node, from what happens as a result of that signalling as
communicated in the extensions and other standard MIP fields.

Apart from the Flarion work that wants to re-use this signalling plane, I am
sure we can all think of reasons that an operator might want tighter control
over the content and hence routing of MIP messages in a domain for NAT /
firewall / security / QoS / accounting etc, and thereby avoid pushing a lot
of state out to the FAs.

Some of these routings may only want to inspect the signalling plane and not
affect forwarding at all which can clearly be achieved but my main focus is
of course on Nested/Concat MIP. GFA is then one such forwarding mode.

The alternative is having to redefine it all again in each case.

So I wondered in which catagory this issue should be addressed. I guess I
would also recommend that that debate doesn't happen until people have a
little bit of time to think about Nested (at least) although the above
broader examples might help with motivation here.

This is a tricky one I know..

Regards,  Alan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 09 May 2002 23:00
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [mobile-ip] Proposed Resolutions to Last Call Comments on
Regional Tunneling Draft

Hi folks,

    WG last call has completed for draft-ietf-mobileip-reg-tunnel-06.txt.
There are a lot of comments on this draft.  I've summarized them into 4
categories and propose we deal with resolutions of each of these categories
of comments separately.  To that end, in the next few days Annika or I will
start a thread on each that attempts to close the issues where possible and
identify areas of remaining disagreement.  Please use the following format
in your response to the list on each of the proposed resolutions.  Respond
as to whether you AGREE, DISAGREE, or CAN LIVE WITH the recommendation.  And
on the response put in the subject line, CLARIFICATION if you have a
clarification to recommend, or ISSUE if you have an issue to raise.

1.  There were objections to whether this document is needed as a standard
at all and to what extent it is clear when and where this standard is to be
implemented, or more accurately NOT implemented.
2.  Issues with backwards compatibility 
3.  Other specific technical issues 
4.  How deployment of regional registration agents raise issues with the
general Internet architecture.

Phil

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:00:26 -0700

Alan,

> firewall / security / QoS / accounting etc, and thereby avoid pushing
a lot

There are plenty of other protocols that deal with these issues, why do
you think MIP has a role to play here? For example, the protocols being
defined in the MIDCOM working group are specifically to deal with
controlling firewalls, etc.
Perhaps the problem is that MIPv4 does AAA, leading one to believe that
MIP is where other such services should reside?

> broader examples might help with motivation here.

I agree that it is premature to move forward with this draft and that
additional debate is necessary. We now have two proposed alternatives.

            jak