RE: MIPv6 hopeless

["marcelo bagnulo" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] 
> Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de agosto de 2003 18:26
> Para: marcelo bagnulo
> CC: 'Christian Huitema'; 'J. Noel Chiappa'; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: MIPv6 hopeless
> 
> 
> Marcelo;
> 
> As I presented at Vienna, there is certain relationship 
> between mobility and multihoming, because both handles 
> multiple addresses, but the relationship is less than expected.
> 
> > 1- Inform host2 that an alternative address is to be used 
> to continue 
> > with the communication. This is what BU message is for in 
> mobility, so 
> > it seems reasonable that it is suitable for this task)
> 
> And security is the issue.

agree

> 
> > 2- A mechanism to enable the end of the communication to identify 
> > packets with alternative addresses as belonging to the initial 
> > communication (this is what the Type 2 Routing header and 
> Home address 
> > option is used for in mobility, so again they are good candidates)
> 
> Routing header is a waste of bytes and a possible cause of
> MTU reduction problem.
> 

May agree with this also. However, reusing existing aproved protocols
also has benefits

> > Clearly, you need to build alternative triggering 
> mechanism. I mean, 
> > in mobility, BUs are triggered by movement detection mechanism. In 
> > this case you are not moving so this is not useful. What is 
> needed is 
> > a failure detection mechanism that is the one that will trigger the 
> > BUs. This mechanism is not provided by MIP. Important benefits are 
> > achieved if this mechanism does not impose modification in host2
> 
> A properly designed mobility protocol should support multiple 
> home agents at multiple locations.
> 

The aplication of MIP to multi-homing support that i am describing does
not use a home agent

> But, the feature is missing in MIPv6. Note that an MIPv6 
> feature of having multiple home agents at a single subnet is 
> nothing more than a useless complication.
> 
> So, there is nothing to be reused and we should define a 
> packet format to support site multihoming, which can be 
> reused to support multiple home agents at multiple subnets.
> 
> > > Ones between MN and CN? How is the security, then?
> 
> > This is the difficult part, i guess.
> > 
> > MIP security is based in the RR procedure,
> 
> MIP security is based on shared secret shared between mobile 
> hosts and home agents.
> 

NO.
Read mipv6 specification and in particular read the description of
return routability procedure

Regards, marcelo


> 							Masataka Ohta
> 
>