Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Implementation question about MIPv6 and IPSec

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:45:56 -0500

I am interested in this conversation, but unfortunately cannot follow all
the details and would like to do some reading on the interworking of MIPv6
and IPSec. Should I go to the RFC 2460, or is there a draft that is closer
to the subject.

Thank you in Advance,

Madjid Nakhjiri
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Madjid Nakhjiri                 [email-masked]
Motorola, GTSS, IP Network Standards
1501 West Shure Drive,(IL27/2D5)
Arlington Heights, IL 60004 USA
Phone: +1 847-632-5030         Fax: +1 847-632-7912

It hurts to be on the cutting EDGE
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:49 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Implementation question about MIPv6 and IPSec

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > The mobility draft specifies the home address DO must be before the AH
   > (then it amends RFC 2460 recommendations, both about DO header/security
   > headers order and about multiple final DO headers).

   The paragraph following the note 3 of RFC 2460 Section 4.1 reads:

      Each extension header should occur at most once, except for the
      Destination Options header which should occur at most twice (once
      before a Routing header and once before the upper-layer header).

=> this is modified by the mobile IPv6 draft which should state this
fact far more clearly.

   So, if there is a Routing header, HA should appear alone before it, or
   with BU compose one DO, but not with two extension headers.

   Shall we interpret the quoted paragraph this way also concerning HA and
BU
   DO -- if there is no Routing header, HA and BU must compose into one DO,
   and it should appear immediately before upper-layer header. I added the
   word, 'immediately', I think it is the underlying thought of the RFC. But
   this interpretation conflict with I-D.

=> yes, the I-D and the RFC conflicts.

   Or we can say the composed DO should appear before AH, and it surely
   before upper-layer header too. No conflict, but I feel strange for this
   interpretation.

=> I expect to get a clear statement about that in the new mobility draft.
For the moment the I-D (abusively) preempts RFC 2460 recommendations...

Regards

[email-masked]