Re: WG Consensus call on AAA based handover keys for FMIPv6

Hi Vijay and Stefano,

I think an AAA based handover keying mechanism for FMIPv6 is
definitely needed.

In the past years we have worked on an AAA based solution
for Mobile
IPv6 bootstrapping as everybody agreed that such a solution
was needed
for MIPv6 deployment. The same solution developed for MIPv6
may be
applied also to HMIPv6. In DIME we are working on a
Diameter
application for MIPv6 and any HMIPv6 related requirement
will be
considered as well.

I don't see any reason why the same need does not apply to
FMIPv6. The
SEND-based solution may be ok for infrastructure-less
scenarios, but
it may be not enough for scenarios where operators want to
explicitly
authorize and control the usage of network resources.

As mentioned by others, this item has always been in the
charter and
was part of the charter discussion since the beginning (as
a
requirement to publish FMIPv6 as PS). Note that even DIME
charter
already includes an item for FMIPv6 so AAA work in DIME does
not even
need any rechartering.

Regards,
Gerardo

On 4/23/07, Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalliazairenet.com> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Progressing FMIPv6 to Proposed Standard requires a
mechanism to setup
> security associations between the mobile node and the
access router
> dynamically. Currently our charter says we will develop
two mechanisms
> for this, one based on using Secure Neighbor Discovery
between the
> mobile node and the access router and one based on the
AAA
> infrastructure.
>
> We have already adopted draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key
as a WG document
> for the mechanism based on SeND. This is sufficient for
advancing FMIPv6
> as a proposed standard.
>
> However, it is unknown whether SeND will always be
available on access
> networks where FMIPv6 is likely to be deployed. At the
same time a AAA
> infrastructure is likely to be used in deployments
where FMIPv6 is used.
> So it would be good to develop a mechanism that
leverages the AAA
> infrastructure and sets up security associations
between the mobile node
> and the access router dynamically. Note that any
mechanism we develop is
> likely to require extensions to the AAA
infrastructure/protocols to
> support the handover keying mechanism.
>
> So we would like to check if the WG still wants to
develop a AAA based
> handover keying mechanism for FMIPv6. So please reply
to this email on
> whether you think such a mechanism needs to be
developed by the MIPSHOP
> WG. Please respond by April 30. This is a short
one-week consensus call
> since we need to re-charter pretty soon.
>
> Note that this *NOT* a consensus call on adopting any
particular draft.
> That will follow once we decide to go ahead with this
work item.
>
> Chairs
> MIPSHOP WG
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshopietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop