Re: [Mipshop] Appendix B of draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6

["Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna at nortel.com>]

Hi Vijay,

> -----Original Message-----
> Subject: Re: Appendix B of draft-ietf-mipshop-transient-bce-pmipv6
> 
> 
> > 2. When the handover occurs, the LMA does not have any clue 
> if that is 
> > a handover or a bogus packet coming from a man in the 
> middle or anything.
> > All the LMA sees is an UNPROTECTED data packet with a source IP 
> > address of the MN pHoA tunneled from a pCoA at the nMAG 
> which is not 
> > registered in the MN BCE. DO you think that is good enough 
> information 
> > for the LMA to decide that the MN is handing over from pMAG to the 
> > nMAG and consequently start a new forwarding entry state 
> for the MN by 
> > accepting traffic from the pCoA at the nMAG?
> > 
> > That is why I used the word SECURE or securely.
> 
> I still don't agree. There is always a message from the nMAG 
> before the LMA starts accepting the uplink packets from the nMAG.
> 
> Static configuration on the LMA does not mean it will accept 
> the uplink packets from any MAG. It means, when the nMAG 
> initiates a handover, the LMA can be statically configured to 
> accept uplink packets from the pMAG for a short duration.

[Ahmad]
Oh.. Sorry, I may have missed something. I am actually fine with this
usecase you mentioned. 

Regards,
Ahmad