Re: [Hipsec] RE: Updated HIP mobility & multi-homing draft

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Jari Arkko;

> marcelo bagnulo wrote:
>
> > > > Additional mechanisms and tools are required to preserve established
> > > > communications both in mobile and multihomed environments, including
> > > > mechanisms to deal with ingress filtering (multi-homing and mobility),

> Ah yes. This is in fact a discussion we had also in the SEND WG during last
> couple of days. At least some people that I talk to think that this is
> a general issue for the IPv6 and multi6 WGs to fix their protocols -- the
> issue appears even when you do not employ e.g. HIP or SEND or MOBIKE.

That's why proposals should be intended to be complete.

At this stage, incomplete solutions are totally useless for
productive discussions.

However, the solutions are not required to solve mobility specific
ingress filtering issues, unless they actively disturb exsiting
capability of ingress filtering with some existing mobility
protocols.

> Right. No, we do not have an answer to these questions yet. One
> potential answer is that we can simply track the usage of the SAs
> that HIP has created. Details to be worked out, however.

You can work forever to fix the details, only after which, make
public proposals.

> It does. I'm just trying to understand the best way to address this "big
> picture" problem. Actually, maybe you or someone else can help here, as I
> have not been involved in multi6 work. Is there a problem statement or an
> explanation of functionality that would cover all these aspects?

Multi6 is expected to have a completed solution on multihoming problems
of IPv6.

						Masataka Ohta