Re: [Mip4] Comments on draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-07.txt

["George Tsirtsis" <tsirtsis at googlemail.com>]

...
>
>>  > Finally we might need to explain in more detail what happens when the
>>  > foreign agent is a VPN gateway as described in RFC 5265. I believe
>> Yaron
>>  > raised this issue. In case you set the code in the IPv6 Prefix Reply
>>  > Extension to "1" in foreign agent care-of address mode, then the IPv6
>>  > packets for the mobile node would actually be encapsulated in an IPsec
>>  > tunnel between the MN and the VPN GW, instead of being sent as native
>>  > IPv6 packets. So we might need a short paragraph describing this.
>>  >
>>
>> GT> We already discussed with Yaron and agreed to add language wrt
>> security devices in general being aware of the new encapsulations
>> defined in this spec.
>
> Can you forward that text, please?
>

Here it is (added at the end of section 5).
               "Security devices should look for IPv6 packets encapsulated over
                IPv4 either directly to the mobile node's care-of address or via
                double encpasulation first to the mobile node's IPv4 home
                address and then to the mobile node's care-of addres.
                Interactions with Mobile IPv4 and IPsec have been covered
                elsewhere, for instance in [RFC5265] and [RFC5266]."



> Vijay
>
--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/