Re: [Mipshop] transient binding draft update

["Vijay Devarapalli" <vijay at wichorus.com>]

Title: Re: [Mipshop] transient binding draft update

Hi Marco,

On 9/1/09 1:56 AM, "Marco Liebsch" wrote:

> *  Added note about static implementation specific approach and reference
>    to Appendix B to the Introduction.
>
>    "..Some implementation specific solutions, such as static configuration
>    and introducing some delays, may help to reduce some issues addressed
>    in this draft, which is discussed in Appendix B.  A dynamic solution
>    by means of the proposed protocol operation helps to optimize the
>    performance for a variety of handover situations and different radio
>    characteristics."

Both "static configuration" and "some delays" are vague. Can we replace the
above with the following?

   The problem that the transient binding cache mechanism is trying to
   address can also be achieved through implementation-specific mechanisms
   on the LMA, such a configuration on the LMA to accept uplink packets
   both from the pMAG and the nMAG during a handover and through buffering
   at the nMAG. However, dynamic solutions by means of the proposed
   extension in this document is needed to optimize the performance for
   a variety of handover situations and different radio characteristics.
   See Appendix B for a more detailed discussion on this.

> * revised last two paragraphs of appendix B.1
>
>    "...Allowing the LMA to forward the received uplink traffic from the nMAG
>    to the Internet while the MN BCE points to the pCoA hosted at the
>    pMAG is a violation of all mobility protocols which require secure
>    signaling exchange between the nMAG and the LMA before forwarding
>    such traffic to the Internet.  Otherwise, the LMA will be modifying
>    the mobile node's routing entry based on an unsecured data traffic
>    packet coming from the nMAG.

The "static configuration" at the LMA actually starts accepting uplink
packets from the nMAG only after receiving a PBU from nMAG. What the "static
configuration" enables is for the LMA to receive uplink packets from the
pMAG for a short duration even through the BCE points to the nMAG. So can we
re-word the above accordingly?

I won't have email access until next Wednesday. If you agree with the above
two changes, please go ahead and submit a revised draft.

Vijay


>
>    Therefore, this case can not be addressed by any statically
>    configured information on the LMA.  On the contrary, a secure
>    signaling using Transient Binding option as detailed in this draft is
>    required to create a transient state for the mobile node BCE at the
>    LMA.  This transient state will allow a temporary routing entry of
>    the mobile node to point to the nMAG Proxy-CoA."
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop