Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-manyfolks-ipv6-cellular-host-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:26:54 +0200

Hi Pekka,

> I really cannot offer much advise on what to suggest for 
> 3GPP.  I don't know the context well enough, and this particular 
> subject is rather blurry right now.

You are right about the blurry part.  What I meant was that
if there is an IPv6 enabled 3G device, we'd like it to 
'behave' properly when interacting with others on the net.
 
> If one would like at least some mechanism that should work, I guess 
> recommending both BU and home address option might be good.  
> But on the other hand, both of these have security implications...

Agreed.

> An important point to consider (perhaps not in this context, but in
> general) is: how will communication between mobile nodes and 
> stationary nodes not implementing either BU processing or HAO work?  
> This is probably something that will occur in real life quite often 
> in the next few years.

This is something that I was getting at.  If BU processing is not
implemented, then wouldn't all packets be routed via the HA?  

John
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 09:03:38 -0500 (EST)

> implemented, then wouldn't all packets be routed via the HA?  

And I find that unacceptable.  Ship the BU and optimization.

/jim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:20:21 +0200 (EET)

> implemented, then wouldn't all packets be routed via the HA?  

Not necessarily, AFAICS (if HAO-option is used).  Depends on how strict
your requirement on mobility (in this context, requirement for
non-breaking connections if IP changes; depends a lot on how architecture
is designed) is.

Do you see any flaws in my reasoning (this wasn't commented on) -- I think 
this should answer some questions..

--8<--
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:15:19 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
To:  <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] WG Last Call on Threat Model and Security 
Requirements for MIP v6 (fwd)

Am I right by saying:

 - with Home Address, without BU: the route will be suboptimal, but
mobility (connections break if MN changes IP address) will still work.
 - with Home Address, with BU: route will be optimal and mobility works.
 - without Home Address, without BU: the route will be optimal and
mobility will not work
 - without Home Address, with BU: route will be optimal but mobility will
not work.

That is,

if HAO
  mobility
  if BU
    route optimization
  fi
else
  route optimization
fi

From above, the only reason why HAO should be useful for a dummy node not
implementing BU is mobility (non-breaking connections).  Is that scenario
relevant enough to justify non-authorized HAO usage?
--8<--

-- 
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