Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Routing header Vs tunneling

From: "Patil Basavaraj (NET/Dallas)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:57:14 -0600

> > Let the IRTF or whoever else wishes to study the implications
> > of changing from the use of RH to tunnelling for IP mobility do so
> > over the next few months (or years) and if the outcome of that
> > analysis says mobility is better done with tunelling, we should
> > consider it at that time.
> 
> Makes zero sense to me.
> Once MIPv6 has been deployed there are close to zero benefits 
> of switching
> to use a different "encoding" of the IP addresses that go in 
> HAOpt and RH.
> It would cause potential massive interoperability problems 
> unless everybody
> implements both the old and new.
> 

I understand your point Erik. But what I mean is that we cannot delay
MIPv6 because we believe there may be a better mechanism down the
pipeline and hence we should wait for it. I mean look at the security
WG,
they went ahead and specified IKE and deployed it. And a few years later
they are revisiting the issue.
So while I am not suggesting that we make a decision that we know we
will
regret later, we should at least make a decision based on what we know
now
and what we have in terms of solutions that would allow MIPv6 to move
forward.

>   Erik
-Basavaraj

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:54:25 +0200 (EET)

> they are revisiting the issue.

Disclaimer: I've not formed an opinion on this matter yet.

IKE may not be the best mechanism to compare to -- it doesn't (quite)  
work.  Do we want the same realization for MIPv6?  If IPSEC people would
now be asked whether they'd like to go back in time, redesign IKE "for
good", taking more time on it rather than getting it deployed, I bet they
would!

-- 
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

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:01:25 +0200

Pekka,

> good", taking more time on it rather than getting it deployed, I bet they

IPSEC WG certainly has its own problems, and progress there
is sometimes not quite "smooth", but IKE certainly _works_.  It's
just not very good.  I'd be very surprised to find any considerable
number of people that would have liked to slow down IKE deployment,
it has been slow enough in any case.

If we can finish MIPv6 soon, I'd very much like see that happening,
even if MIPv6 would never be used very much.  It still would give
us good information how to design a better IPv6 mobility protocol.

--Pekka Nikander