Subject: Re: [nemo] Nemo IPv4 network Traversal

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:17:22 +0000 (GMT)

Hi Brijesh,

The paper looks good and the packet formats
are sane.

There is a critical issue here with the lack of
specified ESP protection on the binding signaling
to the Home Agent.

While there is good reason to believe that these
mechanisms would work, the security considerations
in either case need to be tackled early as well.

Greg Daley

----- Original Message -----
From: Brijesh Kumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, March 14, 2005 3:05 pm
Subject: [nemo] Nemo IPv4 network Traversal

> I think people on the list will be interested in the enclosed 
> paper, 
> submitted to a conference recently by Jaehoon Jeong, Jungsoo Park 
> and 
> Hyoungjun Kim.
> 
> This paper appears  similar to the draft presented in the nemo 
> group in the 
> last IETF meeting by someone on the same subject ( 
> http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/ietf62/nemo-ietf62-agenda.txt ). 
> However, 
> unlike the draft presented in IETF, this paper correctly uses the 
> IPV6 
> format for the new IPv4 address of the mobile router and 
> dynamically 
> updating the information about tunnel endpoint between mobile 
> router and 
> home agent.
> 
> This paper also proposes the use the router running home agent also 
> become 
> IPv6 transition tunnel endpoint for nemo, however,  like the draft 
> submitted 
> to IETF, it does not discuss the long tern impact of this approach 
> on over 
> all IPv6 transition architecture.
> 
> --bk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>