Re: [Mipshop] transient binding draft update

[Vijay Devarapalli <vijay at wichorus.com>]

Hi Marco,

On 9/8/09 1:12 AM, "Marco Liebsch" wrote:

> 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.

I re-read B1 and B2 sections. Yes, B2 covers what I was talking about.

However, I would like to note that in the static configuration on the LMA
scenario that folks have been talking about, there was never an intention to
handle early uplink traffic from the nMAG. It has always been the case that
the uplink traffic from the nMAG is accepted only after the PBU/PBAck
exchange. I think that's where I got confused. The current B1 talks about
allowing early uplink traffic from the nMAG and argues that it is a bad
idea. It was never considered to be part of the static configuration
solution. :)

Its fine with me if we don't make any changes to B1 and B2.

Vijay