Re: Summary of Transport mode discussion (Was Re: MOBIKE WG Agenda for IETF-64, take 1)

Mohan Parthasarathy wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> This is the summary of the use cases for transport mode SA as far as i understand it.
> 
> 1)  SCTP : IKEv2 already supports proposing multiple addresses using TSi/TSr.
>                   SCTP seems to support a draft where one can add address dynamically.
>                   MOBIKE needs to be used for supporting that draft.
> 
> 2) MIP6 : Related to the transport mode SA used in sending Binding updates.
> 
>         a) Adding Home address to the peer address set (don't know how RR would work
>            for this). Mentioned in Francis draft. 
> 
>         b) Another potential use case is using it for CoA  authorization check 
>             where MOBIKE provides the RR check for the CoA in the BU
>             (this is different from the one mentioned in Francis draft)
> 
> 3) Issue 7: IP-IP tunnel with transport mode SA protection. MOBIKE support for upating
>                  the tunnel endpoints.
> 
> 4) TCP connection : Similar to how IKEv2 NAT-T is supported, MOBIKE can also be
>                                 supported.
> 
>>From the discussion in the list, 
> 
>     - it looks like (1) is not that heavily used and so may not justify adding support
>     - 2.a and 2.b should at least be discussed in the MIP6 mailing list also
>     - (3) may be a more common case that needs to be supported
>     - 4 may never be implemented today and hence not attractive at all.
> 
> Comments ? Does (3) make sense ?

IMO, yes - see RFC 3884 ;-)

Joe

_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDabDgE5f5cImnZrsRAg7nAJ9lubzhcQ7mKNuBA+icGN5Qk+7dnQCgy+Uu
lHKUzZNGWmDFl7Nfl3Bjv1A=
=+kVB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----