RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I am not convinced yet either.

But the fact that the MN can restate its location via CoA via BU via
RR+IPsec with HA.  Then the type-2 RH permits packet to get to MN via CN
via HoA.

Seems there is a bit of the abstraction for sure.

It also makes the MIPv6 MHH spec out quite believable.

But that is only part of the solution and I will stop there as I said we
need the model defined even before the architecture solution.  

We could view the MH model as XML
We could view the MH Architecture as Java
We could view the MH implementations as JDK X.X version

XML can support multiple descriptions.
Java can compile multiple descriptions.
The JDK can provide multiple primitives for exectution via libraries.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Nikander [mailto:pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:27 PM
> To: J. Noel Chiappa
> Cc: Bound, Jim; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
> 
> 
> J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
>  >     > From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
>  >
>  >     > How does MIPv6 fit the model?
>  >
>  > Because it separates location from identity.
> 
> YMMV.  In my opinion it does not.  It does *almost*
> separate location from identity, but not quite.
> At least if you do with the current security
> solutions.  If you invent better scalable security,
> then maybe.
> 
> [For current MN-HA security, you need a pre-established 
> security context.  For MN-CN security, you rely on HoT 
> packets, periodically (every 5 minutes) sent through the Home Agent.]
> 
> --Pekka Nikander
> 
> 
>