Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] LIN6 vs mobile-ipv6?

From: "Glenn Morrow"<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 23:29:23 -0600

I see security holes in LIN6 as well. I.e. how do you know to trust the
mapping agents, etc.. Do you have to establish security associations with
them too? Are we going to get into a DNS security and scalability debate?
I'm not trying to bash it. I just think there would be work to do there as
well. 

On the positive side, I do like the idea of avoiding the tunnel overhead by
identifying the separation of locator from global id. I think you might have
some trouble with mobile prefixes and perhaps multicast optimizations based
upon the existing choice of bit used to identify the LIN6 GID.

Perhaps there is room in the IETF or IRTF for a more neutral exploration of
node mobility. There does seem to be a long history of other thinking going
on with respect to the solution set. I suppose the namespace IRTG group is
one such venue that these other concepts have been explored.

I know of:

8+8/GES, IIP, LAR, LIN6, MBG, Application, Dynamic DNS, HIP variants
intermingled with each, others, sorry if I didn't mention one, etc..

It also seems that the requirements of MIP have been actificially restricted
with the excuse of expediting more simple functionality. This has resulted
in numerous spin-offs of the technology into other WGs such as Seamoby,
Monet, IRTF wrecking ground, etc.. etc.. etc.. more coming I'm sure. My
opinion of this is that it only serves to complicate the introduction of a
more complete and possibly more optimal solution that might actually have
been designed to meet all of the requirements. 

So, while I don't think the work on MIPv6 should be abandoned, it may be
prudent to at least start something in the IRTF to take a more greenfield
look at the solution set. 

This would perhaps at least let the MIPv6 WG continue on its current charted
course while allowing a more accepting and open exploration of these other
concepts.

I don't mean to offend MIP supporters or the people with other ideas. I just
think that such a new research group would help out both parties in both the
short and long term. This might also be a healthy thing for IPv6 and the
IETF as a whole. Perhaps the namespace IRTF group is already set up to
explore these other concepts.

I sincerely hope this helps both parties. 

Glenn

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Apr 2002 12:53:36 +0200

"Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]> writes:
[...]
> intermingled with each, others, sorry if I didn't mention one, etc..

Hi, don't want to interfere too much here and I fully agree with your
fine argumentation about potential interactions with research (IRTF).

Just wanted to agree that doing mobility within a TCP/IP framework is
a very vast framework ranging from what routing protocols can do to
what overlaying tunneling can offer and to what directory services can
do (classifying is difficult).  I'm maintaining a bibliography on this
and there are about 340 entries, and there are no RFC nor I-D's in it.

What's 8+8/GES, what's LAR, what's MBG?

Alex

---

From: "Thomas Noel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:45:33 +0200

Hi Alex

>what's LAR, what's MBG?

LAR (Logical Addressing and Routing layer) integrates in a native way,
both point-to-point and multicast communications for mobile hosts. We
implemented it with IPv6 and its extension headers.

We have an Internet Draft (expired)
draft-pansiot-logical-addressing-01.txt and several
research reports. I can send them to you if you want.

Regards

--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Noel
LSIIT
Louis Pasteur University