Re: [Mipshop] transient binding draft update

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

Hi Vijay,

let me try to clarify about the last open issue below.

Vijay Devarapalli schrieb:
> > * 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 think this is simply a misunderstanding. B1 and B2 describe different 
situations how uplink traffic
from pMAG and nMAG is handled at the LMA during a handover.
The first part of your comment describes standard behaviour and the LMA 
accepts uplink packets
from the nMAG after a PBU/PBA handshake. This is not different for 
transient BCE. The second part
of your comment fits more into B2, as it describes how to handle uplink 
packets from the pMAG.
Here, the text in the draft sais that the LMA does not forward uplink 
packets from the pMAG as
soon as the nMAG is registered as proxy CoA in the MN's BCE. This is 
what you could
address with implementation or you solve it dynamically and implicitly 
with a transient BCE.

So, I think both of your comments are valid, but already covered by the 
description in B1 and B2.
Rewording according to your proposal is in that case not appropriate, as 
the proposed text does
not fit into B1, but B2, which covers the statement already. If you this 
we need to revise a
sentence to make this clearer, please point it.

I hope we can fix this small thing soon to proceed.

Thanks,
marco

> 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
> >     
>
>