Subject: Re: [Mip6] Re: Review of the draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-07.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:52:37 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   IMHO, this is not sufficient to add a dependency
   to MOBIKE for MIPv6. moreover, the main problem
   with the use of MOBIKE is that it competes to
   manage the same tunnel as Mobile IP between the
   mobile node and the home agent.
   
=> I fully support this position!

   ok. removed the INTERNAL_ADDRESS_EXPIRY attribute.
   the new text would be
   
       When the home agent receives a configuration payload with a
       CFG_REQUEST for INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS, it replies with a valid home
       address for the mobile node.  The INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS attribute in
       the CFG_REPLY contains the prefix length of the home prefix in
       addition to a 128 bit home address.  The home agent could use a local
       database or contact a DHCPv6 server on the home link to allocate a
       home address.  The duration for which the home address is allocated
       to the mobile node is the same as the IKEv2 security association
       lifetime.
   
=> about the last statement it is clear when the IKE SA is rekey the
HoA lifetime is extended too. If someone finds a nice wording to catch
this idea can (s)he help us to improve the I-D (its new version, I am
a bit late... :-).

   there is text already in the following paragraph
   to say that the mobile node can request the same
   home address again.
   
       The mobile node could suggest a home address that it wants to use in
       the CFG_REQUEST.  For example, this could be a home address that it
       was allocated before or could be an address the mobile node auto-
       configured from the IPv6 prefix on the home link.  The Home Agent
       could let the mobile node use the same home address by setting the
       INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS attribute in the CFG_REPLY payload to the same
       home address.
   
=> in the discussion before RFC 4306, we had a third case: a prefix,
i.e., an address with a null interface ID. In this case it asks for
an HoA in a given home prefix. I don't know if it makes sense as the
home address is supposed to be in the same prefix than the home agent
address...

Thanks

[email-masked]

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:50:56 -0800

> this idea can (s)he help us to improve the I-D (its new version, I am

modified the last sentence in the above paragraph
to the following

    The duration for which the home address is allocated
    to the mobile node is the same as duration for which an IKEv2
    security association exists between the mobile node and the home
    agent.  If the IKEv2 security association is rekeyed, the home
    address lifetime is also extended.

> home address is supposed to be in the same prefix than the home agent

this case is covered in draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split

Vijay

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:56:07 +0100

=> I believe the last statement is not needed, i.e., the "exists" is enough.

Thanks

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:14:21 -0800

> => I believe the last statement is not needed, i.e., the "exists" is enough.

I would like to keep it since it only helps in clarifying
the earlier sentence. more clarity is better, right? ;)

Vijay

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:41:51 +0100

=> it is a choice...   
   
Thanks