Re: Preliminary minutes from the WG last week

I'm confused. In the 3GPP2 solution (draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-00)
MOBIKE is not used between MN-HA, right? The separation is:

between MN-HA: mipv4 tunnel
between MN and VPN gateway: mobike+IPsec

Are you folks saying that the above is wrong/discouraged?

Or are you saying that it is wrong/discouraged *only* if the MN-HA is a MIP6/IPsec
tunnel?


-gabriel

--- Vijay Devarapalli <[email protected]> wrote:

> hi Jim,
> 
> with Mobile IPv6, one can create an IPsec 
> protected Mobile IP tunnel between the mobile 
> node and the home agent. further, the binding 
> update is used as a trigger to update the IKE 
> SA too. so Mobile IPv6 provides a solution 
> similar to MOBIKE already. so that's why I don't 
> expect someone to use the two together between 
> the mobile node and the home agent.
> 
> Mobile IPv4 does not use IPsec and is a very
> different protocol.
> 
> Vijay 
> 
> ps: FYI, the solution described in 
> draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-00 has 
> been adopted by 3GPP2 for their 3GPP2-WLAN
> interworking solution.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] 
> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Kempf
> > Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:41 AM
> > To: Yaron Sheffer; 'Paul Hoffman'; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Mobike] Preliminary minutes from the WG last week
> > 
> > Yaron,
> > 
> > Thanx for sending out pointers to these.
> > 
> > In the MIP6 group, there was some discussion about this, and 
> > the message 
> > that came up was, in fact, "don't do it". I'll post 
> > references to these 
> > drafts to the MIP6 list.
> > 
> >             jak
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Yaron Sheffer" <[email protected]>
> > To: "'Paul Hoffman'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 3:38 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Mobike] Preliminary minutes from the WG last week
> > 
> > 
> > > Regarding the combination of MOBIKE and Mobile IP, there 
> > are 3 current
> > > drafts in MIP4 that deal with this:
> > >
> > > - draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-02 (this one is pre-MOBIKE)
> > > - draft-ietf-mip4-mobike-connectivity-00
> > > - draft-meghana-mip4-mobike-optimizations-00
> > >
> > > So it's a stretch to say "don't do" MOBIKE and Mobile IP together.
> > >
> > > Yaron
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:49
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: [Mobike] Preliminary minutes from the WG last week
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you have any changes.
> > >
> > > MOBIKE WG minutes
> > > IETF 65
> > >
> > > [deleted]
> > >
> > > James Kempf - discussion in Mobile IP group - what happens 
> > if you try to
> > > use Mobile IP and MOBIKE together? Some people believe the answer is
> > > "don't do that". May need an informational draft (as a new 
> > work item) to
> > > address that.
> > >
> > > [deleted]
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mobike mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mobike mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com