Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Consensus call - MIPv4 interopration with NATs/VP Ns

From: "Iyer, Prakash" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 16:36:17 -0800

Raj,

There were even folks (e.g. Alexis Olivereau from Motorola) on the IPSRA
mailing list 
who were asking if a solution to combine mobile IP and VPNs was being worked
on and 
I had responded with the link to the draft
draft-adrangi-mobileip-natvpn-traversal-00.txt.

Enterprise access with mobile IP is likely to be a driving scenario that
clearly
needs standardization of mobile IP with IPsec-based VPNs. And in fact the
vendors who worked on the NAT draft has IPsec-based mobile IP solutions
in their products. We have not seen any pushback on working on a solution to

this problem and would in fact very much like to see this being taken up as
a WG work item.

Regards.
-Prakash

-----Original Message-----
From: Patil Basavaraj (NET/Dallas) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 3:59 PM
To: 'Mobile IP'
Subject: [mobile-ip] Consensus call - MIPv4 interopration with NATs/VPNs

In London a design team was formed to investigate the problem of
Mobile IPv4 interoperation with NATs and VPNs.  At the time there
was a clear constituency in the working group that having a solution
to NAT traversal was important.  It was less clear to the 
chairs that there was a clear interest in the working group for a
specification of the operation of Mobile IPv4 across VPN gateways.  To
that end  we propose that the following draft:
draft-levkowetz-vaarala-mobileip-nat-traversal-00.txt
(the output of the design team) be made into a working group item for
progression on the Standards Track.  Please let us know in the next
few days if you object to this.
 
We would also like to hear feedback from the working group on
whether there is a perceived need for a solution to Mobile IPv4
interoperation with VPN gateways.

WG Chairs

---

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:41:38 -0500

Based on the feedback we'll be making
draft-levkowetz-vaarala-mobileip-nat-traversal-00.txt
a working group item and waiting on the interoperation with VPN gateways
until there is
a larger constituency of interest in the WG.

> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 6:59 PM
> To: 'Mobile IP'

---

From: "Iyer, Prakash" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:13:09 -0800

Was the consensus based on the number of companies. If so, as far as I
remember there were only
2 or 3 companies driving NAT requirements and at least as many (if not more)
interested in solving 
the VPN problem. I remember both George and James Kempf raising this issue
for discussion and a 
couple of other vendors noting their interest on the [mobileip-nat-vpn]
mailing list. As I had 
mentioned earlier there were requests on the IPSRA mailing list as well.

Maybe the chairs can clarify the basis for this conclusion for the benefit
of the working group.
Thanks.

-Prakash

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 6:42 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Consensus call - MIPv4 interopration with
NATs/VP Ns

---

From: "Mohamed Khalil"<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:41:47 -0600

I am interested in this problem. Actually, I have thought about this issue a
year ago  and have some ideas which might be useful.

Mohamed Khalil
Nortel Networks

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 9:15 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Consensus call - MIPv4 interopration with
NATs/VP Ns

Sure.

When we asked during London there was a large constituency in the room that
agreed about the NAT traversal problem.  Not so with the VPN gateway
traversal
and there was some pushback in the private discussion about whether VPN
gateway traversal was needed at all.  If you can get enough folks to post on
the MIP list that they're interested in VPN gateway traversal we can
consider
whether to pursue a draft on it.

Phil

> From: Iyer, Prakash [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 10:13 AM

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:08:32 -0500

Hey Phil,

I think the NAT traversal problem is relatively easier and the
levkowetz-vaarala draft provides a pretty solid solution as a bases for the
discussion. The VPN problem is harder and although some work has been done
on this by a number of companies/people that participated in the NAT-MIP
mailing list the solutions are not as well discussed as their NAT
counterparts. 

Note that there seems to be a market out there for these things and although
the technology is not as fundamental as basic Mobile IP, it is necessary if
MIP is going to penetrate the corporate markets as well as the DSL/cable
based home markets.

I say the WG should pick this up...

my 2 euro
George

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:15 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Consensus call - MIPv4 interopration with
NATs/VP Ns

Sure.

Phil

---

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:48:05 -0500

I got multiple 'complaints' that 2 euros is too much money! Since I did not
mean to be arrogant I take it back and say....

my 2 euro-cents :-)

George 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Tsirtsis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 7:09 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Consensus call - MIPv4 interopration with
NATs/VP Ns

Hey Phil,

my 2 euro
George

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:15 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Consensus call - MIPv4 interopration with
NATs/VP Ns

Sure.

Phil

---

From: "Adrangi, Farid" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:39:51 -0800

Hello Sami:

My two cents ... 

I don't have any problem with NAT traversal draft that you and Henrik
submitted at this point.  But, I am not sure about its applicability on most
likely deployed network scenarios.  In the first IETF meeting, you guys
summarized all possible NAT and NAT/VPN scenarios
(http://www.levkowetz.com/pub/id/nat-mip-scenarios.html and
http://www.levkowetz.com/pub/id/nat-vpn-scenarios.html ).  In my opinion,
the NAT scenarios are not too appealing as the home network will most likely
be protected by a firewall or a VPN gateway.  However, the scenarios "c" and
"d" in the NAT/VPN scenarios look more real to me (i.e, you will most likely
encounter these types of network deployments) -- BTW, a NAT gateway could
also be in the path of a MN and the VPN-GW in these scenarios.

Best regards,
Farid

-----Original Message-----
From: Sami Vaarala [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 12:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Consensus call - MIPv4 interopration with
NATs/VP Ns

Prakash,

> Henrik,
> 
> I think the folks who responded were responding to the question: is this a
> problem to work on and solve and not specifically if they endorse the
> draft. That is true with respect to the NAT draft as well by the way. So
> in a sense the question is: would you like to see this work be taken up
> by the WG.

Yes, I agree.  With regards to the NAT traversal draft, I don't personally
care what it looks like, as long as it works, is simple, and solves
the problem in a way that can be agreed upon, so that I can avoid
implementing a dozen different NAT traversals for interoperability
purposes.  So if you have an issue with NAT traversal, scream!

About the VPN/Mobile IP issue, I think it is definitely an important one.
What I'm not sure about is that it is a *MIP WG* issue (i.e. does it
require MIP changes).  Maybe it cannot be solved in parts, but maybe it
can.  In the latter case there doesn't seem to be a proper place for it --
maybe an informational RFC?

> -Prakash 

Best regards,

-Sami