RE: comments on draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-00.txt

["Soliman, Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 > (Also to Hesham.)
 > 
 > Hesham was stating that this stuff already exists, MIPv4 is doing it 
 > already.
 > 
 > BUT REMEMBER, YOU'RE PLUGGING THAT FUNCTIONALITY TO MIPV6 NOW!
 > 
 > Clear enough? :)  Sorry for yelling.

=> And? Actually, HMIPv6 has this feature already. So it's not 
entirely new to MIPv6.

 > 
 > So, in addition to being to register an IPv4 care-of address using 
 > MIPv6, you'll need to allocate an IPv4 home-address *using MIPv6*. 
 > While this may have been done in MIPv4, this is a new functionality 
 > for MIPv6.  The most tricky part here is that you'll need to 
 > deal with 
 > assigning addresses from another IP protocol, one you would 
 > rather not 
 > go too deep in, and that in v6, there has been a strong desire to 
 > avoid address assignment techniques like this. So, that seems like a 
 > non-trivial extenstion to MIPv6. Doable? -- Sure, but non-trivial 
 > nonetheless.

=> I'm glad you think it's non trivial, I hate to write drafts 
that solve trivial solutions ;) 
The address allocation itself is trivial regardless of the IP version. 
The non-trivial part for MIPv6 is the authentication/authorisation
of the "other" address. The way this is done in draft-soliman...
is by moving the authorisation part (for th e"other" address) 
to the application (read:MIPv6) as opposed to IPsec. I.e. Keep
using IPsec and add more info to the message. The new info can
only be authorised by the MIPv6 code. This is not entirely new
either, nemo uses the same concept although they articulate
it differently. 

Hesham



===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================