Subject: [MEXT] [Fwd: Re: [Mip6] [rfc3775] Application using the care-of address]

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:07:34 +0200

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

Subject: Re: [Mip6] [MEXT] [rfc3775] Application using the care-of address
From: [email-masked] (Arnaud Ebalard)
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:18:16 +0200
List-Id: <mip6.ietf.org>

Hello,

Julien Laganier <[email-masked]> writes:

>> > Reason for change: RFC3775 mentions two times the possibility to
>> > use the care-of address as a source address in outgoing packets. In
>> > the first occurence, RFC3775 says that APIs to control this use are
>> > out-of-scope, but since an API that allows an application to
>> > require the care-of address to be used in outgoing packets has been
>> > specified since then in RFC5014, RFC3775bis could mention RFC5014
>> > as an example of such an API.
>>
>> As a side note (I do not think this fits in the scope of RFC3775bis),
>> there is also a need to control the use of the CoA by the IKE daemon
>> during the negotiation of SA protecting BU/BA because the HoA is not
>> yet available (so not usable). AFAIK, This is not *explicitly*
>> covered by RFC 3775 and RFC 3776 and this specific case cannot be
>> handled using the documents you point.
>
> Why couldn't the IKE process use RFC5014 to ask the IP stack to put the 
> CoA in packets it sends?

This is not the issue; Here is how things happen: the BU created by the
MIPv6 process, uses the CoA as source address in the end (when leaving
the MN) but the packet matches the SP protecting the signaling
traffic. This SP uses the HoA and not the CoA. If no SA is available, a
key manager will handle the negotiation of the SA. The SA being
negotiated also use the HoA. The point is that the key manager usually
selects the source address of the SA being negotiated to perform the
negotiation: in *that* specific case, this cannot be done and the IKE
daemon needs to be told to use the CoA.

This is decribed in details in the pointer I sent in my previous post.

Cheers,

a+

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

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext