Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] LMM requirements: security issue

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:13:49 +0200

=> Well, of course I'll take it out if everyone wants 
it out, but I have to clarify the original intention
for extended mode. This was not only done for mobile 
networks, but the support for mobile networks was seen
as an added advantage. After the recent changes in the MIPv6
spec, and the changes that we were planning for the draft,
I think the other main advantage of extended mode is 
that it will remove the extra tunnel if packets are
forwarded by the HA. So if the MN is communicating with
a CN that does not implement RO or doesn't want to perform
RR, there would still be one tunnel only with Extended mode, 
whereas with Basic mode, the packet will be tunnelled 
twice, once by the HA and then by the MAP. 
So that's one of the main reasons for having both options.
Especially since they make very little difference to the
MN implementation (in the next revision of the draft anyway).

So do you still think it's not needed? We should really 
consider this carefully. I think there are 2 options:

1. Remove Extended mode
2. Keep it but remove any reference to mobile networks

I'm fine with either one as long as we consider the consequences. 
2) is probably less drastic IMHO.

Hesham

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:37:21 +0900 (JST)

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]> 
> 2) is probably less drastic IMHO.

I would like to see the references to mobile networks kept in the
document as long as NEMO doesn't become a WG, but **ALL** references
moved to the annex.

In the present draft, it's really unclear to understand what extended
mode is for because there are always references to mobile networks
from place to places. In one single section, two distinct uses are
described at once: Extended Mode for MN and Extended Mode for a mobile
network. From a reader's point of view, it's tough.
 
I would recommend to describe what is extended mode without references
to mobile networks, and to describe in the annex a possible use of
extended mode for mobiles networks. 

Another solution is to write a separate draft for mobile networks
using extended mode, but for sure I would like to see this work in
some document.

Thierry