Hi Jari,
Thanks for starting this discussion.
On 2007/02/14, at 21:59, Jari Arkko wrote:
I would like to lift up one issue from the Monami6 WG
to a more general discussion. Monami6 is developing an
extension to Mobile IPv6 / Nemo so that a mobile node could
register its presence in multiple locations simultaneously.
One of things that they expect to be able to do is to control
what traffic goes to what care-of address; this flow to this
address, and the other flow to that other address. Mobile nodes
can obviously decide by themselves what outgoing interface to use.
However, in order for a home agent to deal with return traffic
properly, the mobile node has to tell it what policy to
employ.
The working group has debated between a number of different
approaches for doing this. In one approach, draft-soliman-
monami6-flow-binding the mobile node adds a filter to a Mobile
IPv6 Binding Update to tell what traffic should use this binding.
Another approach, draft-larsson-monami6-filter-rules, decouples
the policy exchange from the mobility protocol. The policies are
exchanged at a different time (typically earlier) and carried by a
different protocol (in this case over UDP). Yet another draft,
draft-mitsuya-monami6-flow-distribution-policy also separates
the mobility protocol and policy transfer, and carries
the policies in HTTP.
Monami6 should of course decide how they want to design this.
But this may be an interesting debate from a more generic point
of view. Do we have input for them? For instance, are there needs
in HIP/Shim6/Mobike space for similar functionality? Should the
designs be tailored for each of these situations? Is there some
advantage or disadvantage in looking at a generic solution?
Would a generic solution be doable?
Without going into too much detail about the specific proposals
it seems that there are actually a number of different topics here:
- carrier protocol choice
Unless the sender and receiver agree to use one transport protocol,
it can be any protocol.
Operators can pick one of existing secure transport protocol.
I don't have strong motivation to pick one transport protocol.
This decision depends on how system or application treat the timing
of the exchange, too.
- policy container format
Regardless of transport protocol, filter and policy should be ideally
described in a common format.
If we assume running HIP/SHIM/MIP with policy at the same node,
we should consider the policy and filter "race" among those three
protocols.
How we can convert policies derived from different protocols to a
filter set is big problem here.
At least, a common way to "describe" filter and policy is useful to
coordinate the filter set.
If MIP-filter scheme has the field-A for the policy description, but
other-filter schemes don't have field-A, or
if one has the field-X with meaning-X, but others have the same field
with different meaning,
these are the worst case.
- timing of the policy exchange
This depends on application.
One application needs to send policy from operators (i.e. HA in
MIP6), but some other want to set policy from clients (MN/MR).
In addition, some application doesn't support dynamic policy exchange.
Some sets of policy are statically configured on MN and HA, and is
dynamically switched according to the path availability.
Trigger of filter change must be promptly operated like the same
timing of BU/BA in MIP6,
but trigger of policy exchange is not necessary operated at the same
time.
- securing the transfer
- etc
I actually want to see more comments from SHIM6, HIP, Mobike.
regards,
ryuji
Thoughts?
Jari
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
