Re: Preliminary minutes from the WG last week

Vijay Devarapalli 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.
>  
>
Personally, I am not as convinced as you are that they should never
be used together to the same box. What if the client is
on a v4 network? Or on two separate connections, including
mixed v4/v6 and NATs. Popping up a level, it seems like
some combination of IKE/MOBIKE/NAT-T, Mobile IPv6, Mobile
IPv6 transition mechanisms, and MONAMI6 should be able
to cover the following situations and combinations of them:

- Having a separate SGW before you can reach your HA
- Integrated SGW/HA
- IPv4 access networks
- IPv6 access networks
- NATs and firewalls
- Multihomed mobile nodes
- Mobile nodes that you cannot fully trust (e.g. might need
  a RR before believing their new location)
- Mobile IPv6 service that requires EAP authentication

What exact combination of solutions we should use
is less clear to me. But I confess that I haven't read the
most recent documents on Mobile IPv6 transition
mechanisms.

Anyway, as Paul said maybe someone who cares needs
to write a document about this...

--Jari