Re: issue 12: interaction with other protocols doing RR

James Kempf wrote:

> Vijay,
> 
> 
>>I would rather add an RR test to Mobile IP. It could be a
>>simple Mobility Header message probe protected by IPsec.
>>a couple of reasons.
> 
> 
> I've no objection to this, it might even be a better solution.
> 
> 
>>1. I am not sure we are going to be using MOBIKE between
>>    a MN and HA (when they are already doing Mobile IPv6
>>    signaling. BU is your MOBIKE update message).
>>2. no need to have some kind of interaction between the
>>    IKE stack and the Mobile IPv6 stack
>>
> 
> 
> I think it would be useful to compare the two solutions.
> 
> I have not read your IKEv2 for MIP draft, but I am interested to know if
> some of the backdoor API changes in IPsec mentioned in RFC 3776 could be

nope. it is standard for anyone supporting PF_KEY.

> removed if the HA and MN support MOBIKE. Do you think this would be
> possible?

it would be a bad idea if you the MN has to send a MOBIKE
update in addition to binding update during a handoff. we should
try to do it one message. there is already a secured message for
doing the update (a Binding Update).

Vijay