Subject: [MOBILE-IP] routing optimization authentication

From: Gao Qing <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:56:57 +0800

Hi Emad,

In your previous email, you said:
>         In addition, once the registration reply is received by the MN,
then
> the new FA is authenticated. The HA does not send a successful reply if
the
> FA is trusted by the HA resulting in the MN trusting the FA.

Could you please tell me in your scheme which on earth entity pairs need
to perform authentication, both HA-newFA and MN-newFA, or either of them?

Is there any basis (standard or draft) for your second statement of trust
relationship derivation?

Why do you say that the HA does not send a successful reply when the
following assumption holds?

Thanks & regards,

Qing

---

From: Emad Qaddoura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:03:36 -0500

Dear Gao,

        To start, there was a typo error in my earlier statement "The HA
does not send a successful reply if the FA is trusted by the HA resulting in
the MN trusting the FA" it should read:

"The HA does send a successful reply if the FA is trusted by the HA
resulting in the MN trusting the FA"

        Additional comments are below.

Regards,
Emad Qaddoura, 972-684-2705, esn (444)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gao Qing [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 8:57 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [MOBILE-IP] routing optimization authentication
>
>
> Hi Emad,
>

In MIP, the required SA is between the MN and HA. Others between (MN and
FA), (HA and FA) are optional extensions.

Now, there is some concern about the MN establishing a new security
association during a handoff due to the delay introduced. However, what I
was suggesting is, one way for the MN to trust the new FA is:

        o The MN and HA have a SA,
        o The newFA and HA have a SA,
        o Then, the MN can trust the newFA without a direct SA between the
MN and FA.

I was not making new SAs. The mandatory and optional extensions are in 2002.

What would be your suggested SAs?

> Is there any basis (standard or draft) for your second

What do you see wrong in it?

> following assumption holds?
Please see corrected statement above.