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

From: "Glenn Morrow"<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:30:39 -0600

Erik,

In the previous thread we were discussing whether or not the overhead of
tunneled addresses, routing headers and HOA options were needed in every
packet between the MN and CN. You suggested that an ID might be in order and
so I tried to write down the basic semantics of some proposals. 

It also seems to me that all of this discussion about firewalls dealing with
routing headers and destination options may be mute if people can agree that
we do not need to include the home address in every packet on the route
optimized paths between the MN and CN.

Though the names were chosen to be somewhat humerous, it does work and it
does avoid the recently discussed issues with firewalls, routing headers and
tunneling in general. I hope it also answers the questions you had raised
related to the handling of security and stale entries. 

I am also interested in others' opinions (even the critical ones) on these
proposals. It was written to show what could be possible given a set of
choices and then asks for opinions on what choices make the best sense to
the group as a whole. 

Here is a link to the ID:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morrow-mipv6-zod-00.txt

Comments would be appreciated. I am not fishing for a presentation slot on
this. The mail list and ID should be sufficient to convey the proposals.

Thank You,

Glenn

 Eric wrote:

> BTW: I think it would be useful for you to work out the 
> details perhaps 
> as a short I-D. 
GM2] It is on the way but I think some people understand this already. If
someone can find a way to do the reflector check in a stateless manner, then
my point becomes invalid; however, I don't know if this is possible. I
certainly have an open mind, though.

---

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:26:33 +0200

Glenn,

You wrote:

> I am also interested in others' opinions (even the critical ones) on 
> these proposals. It was written to show what could be possible given a 
> set of choices and then asks for opinions on what choices make the best 
> sense to the group as a whole.
> 
> Comments would be appreciated. I am not fishing for a presentation slot 
> on this. The mail list and ID should be sufficient to convey the proposals.

In general, I very much agree with the fundamental message of your I-D.
However, I also simultaneously think that this is not the right time
or place to start doing that big revisions to the Mobile IPv6 spec.
As Basaravaj implied, I think that there is a good chance that we can
actually get a working MIPv6 security solution, and also the other security
problems *well* *enough* addressed, by Minneapolis.  Thus, it seems like
it may well be possible to get MIPv6 into a standards track RFC pretty soon.
We shouldn't foil this possibility by trying to go too far.

Considering your observations, I also think that there starts to be the time
to considerably revise the internet architecture.  Noel Chiappa's end-points
note http://users.exis.net/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt is an important document
discussing most of the issues related.  The HIP BoF seems to be the place
at the IETF where _something_ is happening in this arena, though slowly.
I think that your work falls beatifully within that approach.

--Pekka Nikander