Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] MIPv6 - Focus of the security discussion

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:56:32 -0500

Francis,

Do you believe there might ever be a need to send a binding update in the
same packet as an RSVP or something similar message?

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 3:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] MIPv6 - Focus of the security discussion

   I believe his proposal also included a "nice-to-have" suggestion to
   introduce a new header type for one of the options currently carried
   in destination headers.
   
=> my idea was to clean up the 3 (at least :-) different positions
for destionation option headers. As the last (aka note 3) one is used
only for BU, BA and BR I proposed to get a new type for it.
But the proposal was for an extension header so it didn't address
the IPsec selector problem: to solve this issue the header must be
a final one, i.e. piggybacking must be killed.

BTW I have a question about Binding Requests: they have no strong
security requirements but to deal with them as BUs and BAs seems
to be simpler and without overhead (arguments: to put them in
the last destionation option header saves nothing (without piggybacking
consideration) and SAs should be there if BRs can be sent).

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:35:30 +0200

=> I don't fully understand your question but:
 - I really believe that piggybacking is a bad idea
 - if your example is RSVP because of the router alert option in
   a hop-by-hop header, a BU as a (final) destination option should
   be processed correctly (i.e. the whole extension skipped) by every
   intermediate routers
 - the burden is not so high (when you put a hop-by-hop extension,
   you definitely ask for the slow and hard path :-)

Regards