Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 18-mrt-05, at 17:58, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Actually, I think we can eat the cake and save it too.
> In fact, if you look at the basic mechanisms already
> proposed for Multi6/Shim6, at their fundamental
> level they *are* capable of doing both multihoming
> and mobility, and with either fast or slowly changing
> addresses. I'm talking about the use of the existing
> CGA format for HBAs, which allows the use of dynamic
> addresses when necessary.

What about the patent situation?

> P.S. There is no proposal on the table that
> would use PKI for anything. Mobility as such
> doesn't need PKI.

No, but it does need a home address, so you don't get multihoming with 
existing mobility. If you want multihoming AND mobility you need strong 
crypto to authenticate adding addresses to existing sessions. You are 
right that CGAs could at least avoid the need for a PKI, but they're 
still relatively heavy-weight.

For those of you who weren't there: there has been discussion in multi6 
and its various design teams about whether a single solution would be 
usable for all multihoming needs. Such a solution would then have to 
cater to the highest performance, most restricted devices, least secure 
environments and highest security requirements at the same time. 
Dropping one or two of these extremes makes everything _much_ easier.