Subject: [nemo] tunnel all mode

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:13:43 +0200

There is a discussion about the "tunnel all" mode in the mip6 WG
mailing-list which is interesting for NEMO too. The initial message
is the mip6 WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-06.txt.

[email-masked]

PS: A diff about the changes made from version 05 to version 06 are at:
http://www.dvijay.com/ietf/internet-drafts/mip6/diff-05to06.html

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:48:22 +0200

Francis Dupont wrote:
> mailing-list which is interesting for NEMO too.

Why is the discussion interesting to NEMO?  Is it more than just the 
fact that a NEMO implementation sends BU to HA?  Is the discussion 
somehow different if MNP is reckoned?  (Mobile Network Prefix)

(as I understand it it revolves around having or not having MIP6
  signalling between MN and HA encapsulated.  The claimed advantage is
  easier security with only one SA instead of 4 if it were not
  encapsulated.  The inconvenient is existing implementation don't
  encapsulate MIP6 signalling.)

Alex

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:16:30 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   > mailing-list which is interesting for NEMO too.
   
   Why is the discussion interesting to NEMO?

=> because NEMO uses most of the MIPv6 IPsec stuff.

   Is it more than just the fact that a NEMO implementation sends BU to HA?

=> no, there is the possibility to protect the whole MR-HA tunnel with
IPsec too (perhaps a better option for NEMO than for MIPv6).

   Is the discussion somehow different if MNP is reckoned?  (Mobile
   Network Prefix)
   
=> this can be a part of the discussion too.

=> yes, I consider the tunnel all mode as a super sharing of the
tunnel SAs. The other idea is better privacy.

Regards