Re: [Mipshop] transient binding draft update

[Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch at nw.neclab.eu>]

Hi Vijay,

Vijay Devarapalli schrieb:
> 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.
>   
I am surprised that you propose the same text as two weeks ago, which we 
commented on
and proposed alternative text. I think we clarified why the above text 
is not appropriate.
Very difficult to proceed..

>   
> > * 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?
>   
Ahmad replied on that already.
> 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.
>   
No, we do not agree. Not sure if we can proceed if we're lost in cycle mode.

marco

> 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
> >     
>
>