Subject: [mobile-ip] RE: Requirements for non-MIPv6 implementations [MIPv6 - Focus of the security discussion]

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:19:23 -0500

Actually Pekka, you seem to have confirmed my worries. Do you agree with the
statement:

"MIPv6 will not provide ubiquitous route-optimized mobility for IPv6."?

The other comments about awful, etc.. I am not sure how to respond to but
that's O.K. - I still like you and I understand your point of view quite
well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 1:58 PM
To: mobile-ip
Cc: Morrow, Glenn [RICH2:C330:EXCH]
Subject: Requirements for non-MIPv6 implementations [MIPv6 - Focus of
the security discussion]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> Hello Glenn,
>
> > Besides route optimized MIPv6 will never be ubiquitous anyway as long as
the
> > binding update processing by CN's is only a SHOULD. The MN and HA will
always
> > have to be complicated by back-off procedures to forward stream tunnel
> > mechanisms.
>
> I think it's too late by more than a year to change this from
> a SHOULD to a MUST.  And, anyway, we can hope that by the time
> we're pushing multiple billions of IPv6 nodes, the benefits of
> routing directly to the care-of address are obvious enough, and
> the code well enough understood.  Then naturally, most nodes
> will process Binding Updates.

<perhaps I should just have settled for grinding my teeth....>

About Glenn's awful suggestion..

Issues about BU security are very unclear at the moment.  It may be that a
_good_ solution will not be developed for some time yet, and we'll have to
settle for a mostly working solution.

[ I'm discussing MN to CN problem here, where CN is stationary ]

And still you're suggesting that under every circumstance, you should
always rely on (badly, if at all authenticated) binding updates?  And no
other operation (that is, _reliable_, _always works_, tunneling from HA to
MN) would be allowed?

Sigh.

There's a lot of life outside mobile-ip.  A lot of IPv6 implementations
will very probably never process Binding Updates, Home Address options and
what not unless they are verifiably secure.  No amount of MUST would
change this, (hopefully) only make the draft harder to pass in the IESG if
they're acting responsibly.

Please do not try to enforce (unsound) MUST rules on non-mipv6
implementations.  What's done with MIPv6 with no requirements for
non-mobile nodes might be viewed as a "mobile-ip wg problem", but the
pollution of all the IPv6 is a more general worry :-).

.. I most definitely hope I misunderstood something in the idea ..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:38:37 +0300 (EEST)

> "MIPv6 will not provide ubiquitous route-optimized mobility for IPv6."?

I agree.

The above statement _might_ be o.k. if the security of MIPv6 could be
implemented scalably and in such a way that it would not be felt
threatening to implement (or enable) the certain MIPv6 parts for
non-mobile IPv6 nodes.

Currently it most certainly seems like either:
 - asking for trouble (unauthenticated BU's, ...)
 - working for an intranet/closed environment only (IPSec requirement ok)

Mobile IPv6 complicates certain portions of non-mobile IPv6
implementation, making those options harder to control.  Most notably
routing headers and home address option (binding updates go without
saying).  I have a ~10 page draft in its final stages where I try to give
some examples of these problems.

Sorry for getting a little heated. :-)