Subject: [Mip6] Please review draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:13:49 -0500

The Mobopts RG has produced the following ID:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-00.txt

Please review the ID and comment.

-Basvaaraj

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 08:03:05 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:
   
   The Mobopts RG has produced the following ID:
   draft-irtf-mobopts-ro-enhancements-00.txt

=> I have two concerns with this document:
 - first there is already a good document about the (in)security of
   the current routing optimization,
 - second I really believe the document is going to the wrong direction:
   Concerns I've heard about RO/RR are:
    * RR is not secure enough for the main security problem: possible
      remote redirection of one's traffic
    * RR is too heavy for a server with thousands of mobile clients.
   So for instance CGA, which can be considered as not very secure by
   itself, is a right improvment because it protects home addresses
   against thefts. And at the contrary CBA, which tries to protect
   against a secondary and IMHO FUD threat (just look at a botnet
   presentation at RIPE/NANOG/...), adds only complexity.

Regards

[email-masked]