Subject: RE: [Mip6] about draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-00.txt

From: Gerardo Giaretta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:56:26 +0200

> 
> > => no, the MN asks the HA to update the reverse tree. The 
> discussion is
> > about where to put the DNS updater code (IKE or MIPv6).
> >
> 

I still think it should be part of MIPv6 code. As Vijay mentioned,
auht-protocol should be bootstrapped too. And in integrated scenario we
may come up with solutions that uses IKEv1 to setup the IPsec SA or with
scenarios where the HoA is not assigned by the Home Agent. I think we
should not have a different DNS update solution for all these
bootstrapping approaches.

--Gerardo
 
>             jak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> 

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to
[email-masked]. Thank you
====================================================================

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:21:29 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> Gerardo, you are forgetting an important part of the context:
DNS update makes sense only when HoA allocation/assignment (best term
please?) is possible. With IKEv1 this is not the case and PTR RRs
are simply static.
So I repeat my argument: the DNS update should be part of the tool
which already is in charge of allocation/assignment and by the
proposed but not yet extension in charge of the validation of MN
auto-configured & co HoAs.
When this tool includes the authentication (of the MN) / authorization
(to use the mobility service including the HoA) it likely can check
the FQDN too.
So please don't extra burden on the shoulders of the MIPv6 code...

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: as noted this issue is a second order one: the IPv6 reverse tree
is so poorly managed than it is nearly useless... IMHO to replace
the intrinsicly DHAAD mechanism by DNS SRV is far more important
(and I am running out of power :-).