Minutes of: Mobility for IPv6 (mip6) At: IETF68 March 19th, 2007 Chairs: Basavaraj Patil Gopal Dommety Credit for these minutes: 1. Ahmad Muhanna (amuhanna@nortel.com) -------------------------------------------------------- Chairs presented the agenda: - Alper suggested to move the DHCP discussion after the bootstrapping agenda item. 2. WG status and I-Ds update 5 Mins - Raj presented the WG Status. - Raj invited Jari to present his idea about merging the WGs MIP6, NEMO, and Monami6 - Jari presented consolidating WGs MIP6, NEMOW, and Monami6 in one. - These WGs handle the same technology. - Jari gave a very brief status of what these WGs are doing. - Raj presented the WG Document status. - Mip6-ikev2 draft is on the editor queue - Privacy location, Rajeev has addressed all security issues and concerns and it is in good shape to move forward. - Hesham mentioned that it is difficult to update the DSMIP draft without feedback from the group. - New WG document - Mip6-rfc4285bis, the primary change is very small change to fix the key length. - Completed WG LC: - Why auth data option - AAA-Ha-goals - Bootstrapping integrated - Ready for WG LC - Mip6-vsm - Experimental-messages - Nemo-v4traversal - Mip6-radius - Mip6-hareliability Raj asked the group if anyone has any comments. No comments. ...................................... 3. MIP6 support for DS hosts/routers - Open issues and discussion I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-03 Hesham Soliman 15 Mins - It is an update to the existing draft - Allows the MN to use either IPv4 or IPv6 CoA. Keiichi: if we can specify the tunneling mechanism, currently we can use either IP-in-IPv6 or IP-in-IPv4. He proposed to specify the tunneling mechanism. Sri: There is proper qualifier. Hesham: do you agree that you can receive it and after that based on the version you can do the switch. Sri: agreed that should work. But generally a qualifier is needed when do encapsulation. Kent: when looking at UDP header, in this case, there is a specific UDP port to specify. Alex: there will be one probably Hesham: said that we have two cases Alex: said when it is an IP-in-IP we do not need another header. Kent: said is that specific to Mobile IP encapsulation? Why do not we use a generic encapsulation mechanism? Sri: said, if there is a fire wall, there is a problem. Henrik: said that we heard this from Sri many times but this is not an issue. Francis: it was not designed for this purpose Henrik: V4 mapped address was not designed for this purpose. The second bullet is kind of bogus. I am not implemented this and I have to rely on other people who implemented this. Hesham, said Pascal implemented this and Keiichi did but he did not comment on it. Henrik continued saying that should be stated more strongly. Hesham: do you agree or disagree to bind the .. Henrik: yes Vijay: this is one sided of solving the issue. IPv4 CoA is carried in. you have to look into the most address and there was many issues raised to why it is a bad idea. Kuntal: one more issue discussed on the ML. one proposal to allow DHCPv6 to be used. I did not see any comment. Hesham and Raj asked Kuntal to register the issue on the tracker. Gopal: the chairs will send an email. Is that ok with you, asking Hesham. Hesham said: Yes. Is there any issue for using RF4334, I do not want to go and ask for another port. Hesham has not thought about it. Gopal, if it can work with two ports, then let us be. Henrik: we can easily make it work with by having an intermediate thing. There should not be a problem using RFC4334. Hesham: they might benefit from other tunneling GRE and that stuff. Henrik: it is even possible, we took some extra space from MIPv4 traversal, but it seems that a good idea. Raj let us close this issue at this point. Let us discuss it and reach consensus. Henrik: after hearing Vijay point and agree and change my point by reserving a new port. Raj: will post on the mailing list. ................................... 3a. UDP Encapsulation for IPv4 and IPv6 in DS-MIPv6 Issue 93 in MIP6 tracker (http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/) Vijay Devarapalli 15 Mins Vijay presented UDP encapsulation for IPv4 and IPv6 in DS-MIPv6 Raj, we will limit the amount of time and we will be better off if we think about them and make a decision later. Henrik: for option 4: you are limited to always have one type of encapsulated header. Vijay: you can send a new BU. Henrik: when I consider how the kernel handles incoming packets it will be easier for the in buffer to handle incoming code. I do not feel very happy about this one. Alex: Pascal if you set a flag in BU but what if you want to send IPv6 traffic in the middle. Is it possible to have this without NAT UDP. Alex, I do not know how you can have IP-in-IP over UDP. Kent: No. 3 other than using an over head I think it is ok. Gopal, Vijay did a good job presenting these options, let us discussing them on the mailing list. ....................................... 5. Home agent reliability I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-hareliability-01.txt Ryuji Wakikawa 15 Mins Ryuji presented Home Agent Reliability Protocol. - Issue about the convergence time in case of an HA switch. Sri mentioned that this is not an MN issue. Raj: please review the document and send feedback. ............................ 6. Discussion of open issues on I-Ds that are in WG LC 20 Mins a. draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02.txt Kuntal presented the integrated AAA-HA solution. Kilian said that he did not proposed what the slide says. In other words, he said the draft should not mention that. Vidya: I am fine with mentioning that about the DHCP security. I had some comments that I sent on the list which talk about physical security. There is nothing about DHCP security. Jari: what DHCP security? Having said that, if Vidya is frightened what you are suggesting is just fine or some ll security mechanism. Hesham: it is public knowledge, the IP address. Vidya: the text seems like it is mandating something Alper: it is a mistake to address DHCP security and we should remove it. Kuntal: we will remove this comment and issue is closed. John Michael: the key authenticate the DHCP server and DHCP client. Where the key comes from. Kuntal, Alper, Vidya, Raj there is no sensitivity in the information carried. Move on. Vidya: we do not need to mandate anything just as clarification. Kuntal agreed. Vidya: this is not closed. Do we need to discuss here or on ML? Kuntal: I have some solution. Raj: take the comments to the ML. Kilian: this scenario is not considered. Raj let us discuss offline. Alper: local HA issue is not specific to this draft and we should not tie it to this draft. Vijay: this issue is a little different RFC3403. if the MN got a DHCP address aside from IKEv2, I am not sure how this will be addressed. Kuntal: we get the address from NAS and it is stateless. Vijay: DHCP is used as a tool. Kuntal: yes as a tool to get an address. This is an address and can be used. Vijay: is there a problem. What is the relationship between the DHCP server and HA. For HA it is not an issue but for HoA it is. RAJ: let us take the issue to the ML. Kuntal: prefix also may have the same issue. Vijay: there is another DHCP option draft, can we move forward and address that in that draft. Kuntal: will update the current draft and then post emails about the open issues. Vijay: this document has a section how the MN should send DHCP request and how the DHCP relay should work. Also that other document also has the same text. It should be addressed in one draft but not in both. Vijay will send the text to the authors. ....................................... 4. DHCP Option for Home Information Discovery in MIPv6 I-D: draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-02.txt Heejin Jang 10 Mins Vidya: more HL Q, if we assigned HA this way, if we use IKEv2 to fetch the information why we need DHCP? Vidya: why Gerardo: I agree with Vidya that we do not need this document. It seems that as if it is a companion document but not needed. Raj: do we need additional information. Kuntal: there was discussion in WiMAX and they added this option. Raj: then you need to put forward a Use case and if it is specific to some SDOs then we can rethink it. Raj: do we need that info Raj: write the use case and why we need this option. Bechet: we need the address but do we need stateless or not. Raj, Alper let us take it to the ML. Alper: what is the process, we have open issues? Can you guys send your comments ASAP that we can address them Vijay: both these documents have similar changes, can we write another document. Raj: we do not need another one. ........................................ Non-WG items: 1. Service Selection for Mobile IPv6 I-D: draft-korhonen-mip6-service-00.txt Jouni Korhonen 10 Mins Henrik: Mostly concern about the ID if it is plain that is ok but it has to be much more secure. Jouni: will be sent in BU Henrik: If this ID is handed out by the provider, it should not be possible to change it. .............................. 2. Mobility Header Signaling Message I-D: draft-haley-mip6-mh-signaling-02.txt Sri Gundavelli 10 Mins Alper; what is the scope of the message. Sri: Opaque load, HA is going down after 1 hr or something? Alper: is that related to MIPv6 related or prepaid. Henrik: there is a similar thing in MIPv4. My worries when saying opaque. This becomes not MIP6 specific. Alex: looks like a good idea. Hesham: there is another draft about vendor specific because there is another draft which is VS draft. It was agreed that this is a good thing for MIP6 and Raj will ask for consensus to make this a WG document.