[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: MIPv6 hopeless
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Masataka Ohta [mailto:email@example.com]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de agosto de 2003 18:26
> Para: marcelo bagnulo
> CC: 'Christian Huitema'; 'J. Noel Chiappa'; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Asunto: Re: MIPv6 hopeless
> 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.
> > 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.
Read mipv6 specification and in particular read the description of
return routability procedure
> Masataka Ohta