Presentation on theme: "Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made."— Presentation transcript:
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an “IETF Contribution”. Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: –the IETF plenary session, –any IETF working group or portion thereof, –the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, –the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, –any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, –the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3667 and RFC 3668. Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 3667 for details.
Mobile IPv4 (mip4) Agenda http://mip4.org/ietf61/ Henrik Levkowetz & Pete McCann November 11, 2004
Agenda Preliminaries 10 min Chairs (http://mip4.org/ietf61/) – Minute takers? – Agenda bashing – WG status web page update ( http://www.mip4.org/ ) Document Status 15 min Chairs – draft-ietf-mip4-aaa-nai-03 RFC Published – draft-ietf-mip4-aaa-key-06 RFC Ed Queue – draft-ietf-mobileip-lowlatency-handoffs-v4-09 AD Evaluation :: AD Followup – draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-statement-03 Approved-announcement sent – draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-02 Almost ready to be sent to IESG – draft-ietf-mobileip-reg-tunnel-09 Draft with new boilerplate, then IESG – draft-ietf-mip4-dynamic-assignment-03 Publication Requested – draft-ietf-mip4-experimental-messages-02 RFC Ed Queue – draft-ietf-mip4-rfc2006bis-01 Review needed – draft-ietf-mobileip-vpn-problem-solution-03 Co-editor needed, editing needed – draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis-01 ID exists – draft-mip4-faerr-00.txt WG last call over, 1 comment received
Agenda (con’t) 3012bis 5 minChairs – summary of recent issues – status and next steps. – draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-02.txt VPN solution 5 minChairs – Co-editor for draft – draft-ietf-mobileip-vpn-problem-solution-03.txt 3344bis 10 minCharlie Perkins – Resolving outstanding issues and next steps Faerr document 5 minChairs – last call status Route Optimization 5 minChairs – Take up route optimization for MIPv4? IPv4/IPv6 transition 5 minChairs – Questions about MIPv4/MIPv6 - IPv4/IPv6 transitions
3012bis Issue was raised with HMAC_CHAP_SPI –Inner HMAC for compression would require a key –No pre-shared key between MN and FA –No way to carry this inside RADIUS –RADIUS servers implement CHAP, not HMAC_CHAP Proposed Resolution –Delete HMAC_CHAP_SPI from text »It was added after security review suggested replacing MD5 with HMAC_MD5 »However, review was really talking about the main authentication extension, not the RADIUS compatibility text »We have a disclaimer about the safety of this option in the Security Considerations
VPN Solution draft-ietf-mobileip-vpn-problem-solution-03.txt Sami Vaarala is the current editor –Sami has agreed to continue, but doesn’t have a lot of time… –A co-editor is needed Last IETF, some people offered to work on this –Please see the chairs after the session so we can finalize this
Foreign Agent Error Last Call ended Friday, Nov 5 One comment received –Positive support –Length field correction –What to do about unauthenticated FA error? –What to do if FA receives RRP with FA error already appended? Discuss here, resolve on the list Do we have support to move forward?
Route Optimization Do we want to take this on? It was a major source of contention in IPv6! There is a not inconsiderable amount of work required to specify this as a general mechanism which will have acceptable security… Who are the customers? What are the assumptions? –Security model?
IPv4/IPv6 Transition A new mailing list has been created –firstname.lastname@example.org –Purpose: discussion of IPv4/IPv6 transition questions related to Mobile IP –To subscribe: »send “subscribe miptrans” in the body of an e-mail to email@example.com
IPv4/IPv6 Transition draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-00 –Individual submission »Will be submitted directly to the IESG for publication –Attempts to define the field of possible combinations of IPv4/IPv6/MIP4/MIP6 »Getting acceptance for specific solutions has been difficult »Comprehensive analysis like this needed first »Analysis in draft may be basis for future work –Comments welcome »Please discuss on firstname.lastname@example.org
IPv4/IPv6 Transition Requirement for new MIP4 work items in this space: –A clear statement of the scenario / environment for which this is needed –A clear statement of which of parts of the transition combinations will be addressed –A definition of the problem, e.g. why does the work need to be done