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

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

nope. thats *a* solution for a network where 
there is a trusted network and an untrusted 
network with a MIPv4 HA inside the trusted 
network and a VPN GW in the DMZ.

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

whats discourage is running MOBIKE and 
MIP6/IPsec tunnel to the same box. thats my 
personal opinion anyway.

Vijay

> 
> 
> -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 
>