Subject: [nemo] Visiting Nodes

From: Eranga Perera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:15:18 +1100 (EST)

Hi,
Thanks for the replies. Thought I'll express my humble opinion in one go!

I agree with Maria and Pascal in the sense that if a commuter obtains
connectivity via a MR then his/her device will be operating in a manner
similar to a LFN. But shouldn't our objective be to enable these nodes to
run any application not just browse the web. How about accessing VPNs?

Alex,
A non MIPv6 node sure enough would loose the connection when hopping from
a bus to a train. But say for example a commuter needs to synchonize his
calendar on his PDA with the PC in his office. If we assume that visiting
nodes without MIPv6 capabilities are like LFNs then such applications
cannot be supported unless we take care of the security issues. So isn't
it necessary to give emphasis to visiting nodes without MIPv6 capabilities
and try to solve these issues. Basically if these visiting nodes have
permanent IP addresses then how does NEMO protocol handle such nodes -
bidirectional tunneling via double Home Agents ?

Or can we safely  assume that all viising nodes will have MIPv6
capabilities and not address the above issues? Are all future devices
going to be embeddded with MIPv6?? I guess this is a point to ponder!

Sorry if I've misinterpreted something.

Regards,
Eranga

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:47:25 +0900

Hi,

What you are talking about it a LFN. It gets an address in the mobile
network via DHCPv6 or anything, and then communicates with its peers
using this address. I don't see what would prevent this node to run any
kind of application. As pointed out by Pascal and Alex, it's just not
efficient to do so as it breaks the connections and you need to restart
them when getting in the mobile network. So, either you use some
mobility support mechanims such as MIPv6 and your PDA is a VMN, or you
restart the applications and its a LFN from a definition point of view
and from the point of view of the MR. 

The PDA may need to authenticate itself first, but this is another story
orthogonal to NEMO and mobility at large.

Thierry.

-- 

Thierry Ernst, PhD
WIDE at Keio University, Japan
IETF NEMO WG co-chair http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/nemo-charter.html
WIDE NAUTILUS WG co-chair http://www.nautilus6.org
--
E-mail: [email-masked]
Web: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
--
Jun Murai Lab
Keio University K-square Town Campus
1488-8 Ogura, Saiwai-ku, Kawasaki
Kanagawa, 212-0054 Japan
Phone : +81-44-580-1600
Fax   : +81-44-580-1437
Mobile: 090-9815-8023

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:47:25 +0900

Hi,

Thierry.

-- 

Thierry Ernst, PhD

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:52:00 +0100

Eranga Perera wrote:
> But say for example a commuter needs to synchonize his calendar on 
> his PDA with the PC in his office. If we assume that visiting nodes 
> without MIPv6 capabilities are like LFNs then such applications 
> cannot be supported unless we take care of the security issues.

I have nothing against commuters in need of access everywhere everytime
and even would like to see IP access within NEMOed submarines, not only
buses or trains.

The security issues, how?  A PDA entering a train would use IPsec
between itself and its PC on its desktop at the office; the LFN-Desktop
IPsec tunnel would be re-tunneled by the MR and by MR's HA.

There would be no interaction between Node's IPsec and the MR-HA IPsec,
a matter of modularity...  or, do you think there should be some
interaction, why?

Otherwise, do you potentially have a specific security architecture in
mind that would support the non-MIPv6 Nodes (but still physically
mobile) in a way that is different than multiple IPsec encapsulation?

Or, if there is concern in that traffic unoptimally goes through the
MR's HA, then this is more or less an RO issue, no?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:52:00 +0100

Alex