----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji.wakikawa at gmail.com>
To: Julien Laganier <julien.laganier.ietf at googlemail.com>
Cc: mext <mext at ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 3:50:13 AM
Subject: Re: [MEXT] using MR-HA tunnel vs. combining BU // Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt
Julien,
On 2008/12/17, at 18:22, Julien Laganier wrote:
> Ryuji,
>
> On Wednesday 17 December 2008, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
>> I guess the reason of using tunnel is security.
>> We don't have any secured mechanism for protecting DHCP
unicast
>> message. In NEMO nor MIP, IPsec SA is not created for DHCP-unicast
>> messages.
>>
>> MR cannot trust the unprotected DHCP message for its MNP..
>
> With MIPv6 there's already the requirement that a certain number of
> IPsec SAs are cinfigured between the MN and the HA, thus I don't see
> any problem with requiring a few more to protect DHCP signaling
> exchanged between the MR and HA.
I answered to Alex's mail about IPsec protection.
Again, I think the use of BU/BA for prefix delegation is much simpler
and easier.
We now have an example to delegate a prefix to a mobile host by PBU/PBA.
ryuji
>
>
> --julien
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext