Re: (virtual) hum on CARD open issues

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> 

> > 2. Issue #4: Drop CARD protocol message piggybacking with FMIPv6? Meeting consensus is to keep the current text for CARD protocol operation with FMIPv6.
> >
> > 3. Issue #33: Inter-AR CARD protocol transport from UDP to ICMP. The editor recommends the use of ICMP to make it consistent with the mobile interface. Potential downsides: ICMP has potential security implications. ICMP message types on binding is also very implementation specific. Also, securing ICMP would require that all ICMP packets be secured. Meeting consensus is to keep UDP.
> 
> 2 and 3 dont go togetheer. defining CARD messages as ICMP
> options lets you piggyback these options on FMIPv6 messages.
> I am not sure how you can achieve piggybacking if the MN-AR
> signaling becomes UDP. ICMP was the right choice between
> the MN and the AR.
> 
> from a recent discussion on the IPsec mailing list, it
> looks like we might get the ICMP type as an IPsec selector.
> then you would be able to distinguish between different
> ICMP messages. ofcourse I dont when it might be
> standardized.

Pat, Jim,

I misunderstood (3) to mean use UDP both for MN-AR and 
AR-AR CARD signaling.

but I still disagree with concensus for (3) though. I 
mentioned a couple of reasons in my reply to Ajoy.

Vijay