[support] IKE (v2) and IPsec implementation in a NEPL context

[Georgopoulos, Panagiotis]

Hi Sebastien,

> 
> > In my mind having an MR behind an MR is not that tricky and can arise in
the
> > real world very easily.
> 
> If Mobile IPv6 / NEMO gets widely deployed (public transports, ...), yes
> I agree, this situation will be likely to occur (a car inside a train?
> :D ). 

How about a person inside a train? ;-) A person having its own lightweight
MAR creating a PAN for all his devices (Phone, laptop, maybe gps device
sending data to a server? etc)

Or even better a rescuer out in the rescue field getting connectivity from
another rescuer or a vehicle, again by carrying its own personal MAR
supporting his camera, gps device, smart phone, sensors etc...


> Anyway, I honestly don't think we are close to this point right
> now :) But, please tell me if you feel otherwise!

Well, no I don't think that we are that close to real-life nested scenarios,
but we are not that far either! From another point of view, we are
researchers we should cater for the not so unlike to happen scenarios ;-)

> Two years ago, I was more under the impression that network providers
> were more interested by network-managed solutions such as PMIP6, which
> probably makes more sense from the point of view of operation. Anyway, I
> agree that NEMO can also be a network-managed solution, so it can
> eventually find its way to the "real world" -- unless "new generation"
> solutions such as id/locator split come first...
 
Well, what's your opinion now? Because you say that "two years ago" you were
with that impression...
I agree with you though, that network-managed solutions would seem more
appealing to ISPs and providers because they can create services for users
and they also "take" all the administrative burden and sell ready-to-go
products (e.g. a lightweight mobile router.. who knos?) that uses their
services. 

I think id/loc solutions are even further down the road...!


> > But for the shake of understanding, indeed the
> > nested case is a further step from the simple case, that is getting an
MR
> > supporting MNN :-)
> >
> 
> Well, I must confess I was really surprised when I first heard about the
> nested case. To me it seemed only natural that it should work just "out
> of the box", since the traffic from a nested MR or an MNN should be
> exactly the same thing from the point of view of the MR and HA. But, for
> some reason (I don't remember exactly why, sorry), it is not so
> simple... Hence the need for more tests ^^.

Well, this is one of the advantages of NEMO BS, that a nested MR disguises
itself as a simple ipv6 device and I believe this is the beauty of it, that
the gateway MR does not need to be explicitly aware of this (I think Romain
sheds a bit more light on that with his email).


Cheers,
Panos