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

From: "Patil Basavaraj (NET/Dallas)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:19:14 -0600

Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
>> Good point, James. I would add that if effort is applied and MIPv6
gets to
>> RFC soon, it seems a lot of resources would be freed up to work on
other
>> mobility challenges, including a next-generation solution with all of
the
>> good ideas generated thus far.
>
>Do you think that the HAOpt+RH vs. tunneling is something that an
updated
>MIPv6 protocol would do differently? Or were you considering other
ideas?
>
>Assuming they are semantically equivalent (i.e. solve the same security
>requirements etc) then changing from using one encoding to the other
wouldn't
>solve any new problem and wouldn't add any capabilities.
>But it would require implementations to be capable of interoperating
with
>both the old and the new encoding.
>
>This isn't an argument that the right thing is to switch to do
tunneling;
>but it is an argument that this is a "now or never" decision.
>

I think we simply need to focus on the problem that we have been
dealing with over the past year and resolve that. 
There is no reason to rush into tunnelling over RH without a fair bit
of analysis. So the "now or never" question in my opinion does not
apply. 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. For now, I would be in favor of going
forward with what has been done (with significant thinking) over a
significant period of time , i.e proceeding with the use of RH and
merely solve the security issues around BU, HAO. 

>  Erik

-Basavaraj

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:55:09 +0100 (CET)

> dealing with over the past year and resolve that. 

Agreed. How to secure BUs and security requirements for HAOPt and RH is
what need to be resolved ASAP.

> apply.

The "now or never" means that assuming that "we can change this in the
next version of MIPv6 after MIPv6 has started to be deployed" makes absolutely
no sense.

Thus at some point in time we need enough analysis for the WG to be able
to make a decision.

> Let the IRTF or whoever else wishes to study the implications
> 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.

  Erik