Re: [Mip4] Re: [Issue 45] RFC 3344 - FHAE issue when using a different careofaddress

["Charles E. Perkins" <charliep at iprg.nokia.com>]

Hello Sri,

Sri Gundavelli wrote:

>> Note that the FHAE doesn't seem to be related to the
>> content of such a deregistration message in the same
>> way as it might be for a registration message.
>> If the mobile node wants to discontinue service,
>> I don't see why a foreign agent in this scenario
>> should have anything to say about it.  In fact,
>> maybe we should mandate that the foreign agent
>> MUST NOT include the FHAE, even if it does have
>> a security association.  It could be a way to
>> keep the mobile node paying for service it does
>> not want.

> Should we not be consistent w.r.t adding FHAE extensions
> for all registration requests irrespective of the lifetime ?
> With the above reasoning, we may not need FHAE at all. There
> will always be a need for the FA to protect the extensions
> it adds to the registration requests and so skipping FHAE
> for dereg messages in one scenario may not be such a good
> idea, IMHO.

My reasoning was that in this scenario, the foreign agent
does not necessarily have any authority over the treatment
of the care-of address.  Thus, the home agent has much
less reason to authenticate the foreign agent.

When the foreign agent purports to own the care-of address,
I can see why the home agent would want to be more
careful about the registration process.

Don't you agree there is a difference?

Regards,
Charlie P.

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@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/