Subject: [mobile-ip] Consensus to include recent piggybacking proposal?

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:33:59 -0800

Hello folks,

A few days ago, I posted a proposal worked out by Jari Malinen,
Francis Dupont, and myself that should be a very simple way to
eliminate any possible inconsistency between piggybacking and
IPsec -- by the simple device of having a "final" Mobility Header
and a "nonfinal" Mobility Header, that are otherwise the same.
In this way, all possible conflicts with IPsec are removed, and
yet endpoints that enable payload with Binding Updates are able
to get that performance improvement.

In order to avoid duplicating text, I put the proposal at the
following URL:
    http://people.nokia.net/charliep/txt/mobilev6/piggybacking.txt

Before this proposal, there was a pretty even split within the
working group -- some were for, some against. The main objection
seems to center around difficulty with IPsec policy management,
and our proposal eliminates that problem entirely.  Thus, I think
that we should be able to include this into the base specification,
and I am hoping that there will be no one objecting -- because
in effect everyone gets what they want!

With this note, I am attempting to gauge consensus on this issue.

Thanks for your consideration of my request.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:40:41 +0100 (CET)

> in effect everyone gets what they want!

Charlie,

I recall seeing a point about security gateways imposing policy
i.e. the sender of the piggybacked message might not be able
to tell what policies apply to the MH and the payload in the case of a SG
with fine-grained policy.

I think this needs to be better understood.

So I think there is some additional thinking and writing necessary.
I personally see no harm in pursuing this as a separate short specification -
and it has benefits of being able to do things more in parallel by
avoiding cramming everything into the same specification.

  Erik