Re: [Mipshop] transient binding draft update

["Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli at starentnetworks.com>]

Hi,
 

>
>    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..

Isn't the text above saying the same thing? To me, it's clear.

>  
>> * 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.

Agree with Vijay. I assume we will have reference to the ID I mentioned that first outlined this issue?
 
Regards,
 
-Rajeev
 
 
> 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
>>    
>
>  


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop