Intro
-
This post addresses section 9.8.3 and 10.{16,17} in the Mobile IPv6
draft,concerning Tunneled Router Solicitations and Advertisements. As I
posted on the Mobile IP mailing list, the procedure proposed in these
sections will not work when a MN is in the process of configuration and
with
Hi,
"T.J. Kniveton" wrote:
> Open Issues
> ---
> SECURITY:
> The Router Solicitation must be protected by an Authentication Header.
> This is already a requirement.
Is it? Where do you find that requirement? The RA needs authentication
though.
> The Router Advertisement should/may be e
> -Original Message-
> From: T.J. Kniveton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 6:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Powell, Ken
> Subject: New idea for Router Sol/Adv and Mobility
> Solution
>
>
on 2/15/01 1:46 PM, Powell, Ken wrote:
> Under this proposal, the Mobile Node will have to re-establish the
> Security Association between the Home Agent and its Care-Of Address
> every time it moves to support IPsec requirements for Router
> Advertisements. How does this fit in with the process
> Solution
>
> The solution to this problem involves two steps: relaxing a Neighbor
> Discovery rule on the HA and MN, and creating a mobility processing rule
> on the HA and MN. Now RS/RA can be sent without any special Mobile IP
> headers, and look very similar to normal RS/RA, except
Hello
I basically like the idea of not tunnelling. Tunnelling doesn't
do anything for you actually. But I have some comments
on the details you mentioned below. I'll send a separate
mail with a similar proposal to yours but with small modifications
and attempt to give some hints for the autho
Hello again,
There is a number of problems that need to be solved
I think to get the right proposal.
- ND does not allow you to send an RS outside your
subnet.
- MNs need to get the Home network prefix to configure
themselves with a Home address.
- To be able to send an RS with TTL <2
on here.
I'm going to be off-line next week and won't be
able to respond to any questions till I get back.
Ken
> -Original Message-
> From: T.J. Kniveton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:41 AM
> To: Powell, Ken; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
L PROTECTED];
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: New idea for Router Sol/Adv and Mobility
>
> Hesham's response helped greatly to resolve the
> security questions I had.
>
> At first, I thought the RS/RA exchange between the
> mobile node's COA and the home agent d
"Powell, Ken" wrote:
> I suppose another option would be to add a
> "request aggregate prefix list" flag bit to
> the router solicitation message. Such a flag
> bit would be easier to implement in that
> it would only impact the part of the stack
> that deals with router solicitation/advertisem
- Original Message -
From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 9:21 PM
Subject: RE: New idea for Router Sol/Adv and Mobility
> Hello Ken,
>
> Erik suggested in his e
Mattias Pettersson wrote:
>
> "Powell, Ken" wrote:
>
> > I suppose another option would be to add a
> > "request aggregate prefix list" flag bit to
> > the router solicitation message. Such a flag
> > bit would be easier to implement in that
> > it would only impact the part of the stack
> > tha
> > > I suppose another option would be to add a
> > > "request aggregate prefix list" flag bit to
> > > the router solicitation message. Such a flag
> > > bit would be easier to implement in that
> > > it would only impact the part of the stack
> > > that deals with router solicitation/advertisem
> Let me play devil's advocate:
>
> No new types are required! What we're sending is still a Router
> Solicitation/Advertisement. The fact that it is routed gives us more
> information:
Excessive overloading of semantics might not be the best solution.
So let me play the reverse devil's advoca
> >> 1. The TTL of RS is < 255, which tells the HA it is from off-link.
> >
> > Or a spoofed RS. When a router receives a spoofed RS it would presumbly
> > log an event and/or increase a counter.
> > With your overloading proposal it can't tell the difference
> > between a spoofed one and a mobi
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New idea for Router Sol/Adv and Mobility - NO new types
> >> 1. The TTL of RS is < 255, which tells the HA it is from off-link.
> >
> > Or a spoofed RS. When a router receives a spoofed RS it would presumbly
> > log an event and/or inc
> Clearly I need a
> picture to understand why the MN would know its HA, but not its home prefix.
While the MN must know at least one home prefix it might not know all of them
in particular it might not know about any new prefixes that have been
introduced while the MN was away from home.
So it
In your previous mail you wrote:
=> this thread was completely messed by the mobile-ip mailing list bug:
I believe a summary is needed in order to understand ideas and
their chain.
On one hand I agree with Erik that new types are better than overloading the
semantics unnecessarily. The ba
crossposted there.
My message which describes the problem is "New idea for Router Sol/Adv and
Mobility," which should fill you in.
If you can't find that, let me know and I will forward some of the messages to
you.
>On one hand I agree with Erik that new types are better
19 matches
Mail list logo
