Re: issue 12: interaction with other protocols doing RR
Vijay Devarapalli <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Francis Dupont wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: > > I would rather add an RR test to Mobile IP. > > => I don't understand this necessity to even more damage Mobile IPv6. > Perhaps it is not yet in trouble? I agree with you. if an RR test is needed for Mobile IP, we can develop it in Mobile IPv6. I dont see MOBIKE's RR test used by Mobile IPv6. > > It could be a > simple Mobility Header message probe protected by IPsec. > > => it simply costs a RTT for a second order threat. > > a couple of reasons. > 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). > > => we are going to use either MOBIKE between a mobile VPN client > and SG, or Mobile IPv6 between a MN and HA. agree completely. > > 2. no need to have some kind of interaction between the > IKE stack and the Mobile IPv6 stack > > => and the K flag? right. we dont need it for an RR test. Vijay > > Regards > > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > Mobike mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike