Re: Mobile IP and Mobike

Tero,

> The mobike is targeted to the environments where the other end of the
> connection is stable, i.e the VPN sgw or similar. The mobile ip both
> ends can move, and the connection is not necessarely from the mobile
> node to the sgw to the www-server (for example), but can also go
> directly between mobile node and www-server.
>

I'm not sure I understand. In both cases, presumably the mobile node is
communicating with a correspondent that is not the intermediate node. In
both cases, the intermediate node typically isn't moving. The mobile node
can be moving, but I believe what you are saying is that in the Mobike case,
the correspondent can't be move, is that it?

Wrt. direct routing between the mobile node and the correspondent, yes,
that's a difference.

> The mobile IP can benefit from the MOBIKE when handing the mobile node
> and home agent connection. I.e. instead of recreating the SAs from
> scratch every time mobile node moves, or doing all kind of wierd IPsec
> processing to make simulate same stuff inside the ipsec stack, mobile
> IP can leave the MOBIKE to take care of the IPsec connection between
> the mobile node and home agent, and it only needs to concenctrate to
> the route optimization etc to make the connection which are not going
> to the home agent or home network more efficient.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree. Mobile IP sends a Binding Update through an
ESP Auth tunnel, and could optionally also use encryption on the tunnel. If
both are used, and if in addition the Mobile Node uses an ESP Auth + Enc
tunnel for data traffic, it seems to me that it would be exactly the same as
for Mobike. Therefore, the Mobike "binding update" message to the home agent
would conflict with the Mobile IP message.

            jak