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

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:27:55 -0500

Jari,

I am fairly confident that these respective access technology and
compression groups can find acceptable ways around handling piggybacked
binding udpates that meet the requirements for the particular media streams
in question.

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. 

In my opinion removing this complication is more important than removing the
piggyback complication for specific access technologies and compression
mechanisms.

I would rather see the group focus on making the route optimized mobility
ubiquitous and removing the complications of it not being.

Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:58 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] MIPv6 - Focus of the security discussion

>Link layer should fragment the IP datagram.

Yes, but then the whole stream of packets is
"moved forward" in terms of delay. Delay
might be bad enough already for this to not
be possible without loss of quality. Could
be better to throw away the whole packet.

Jari

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:28:34 -0700

Hello Glenn,

> 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.

> ubiquitous and removing the complications of it not being.

The complications of using Destination Options with payload are all
on the sending side.  The receivers implementation is very natural.
That's why it makes very much sense to me, to leave it as a possible
option for _senders_ that want to maximize the performance of their
communications.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 21:58:12 +0300 (EEST)

> 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: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:07:12 -0700

> other operation (that is, _reliable_, _always works_, tunneling from HA to

I am pretty sure that no one has suggested disallowing tunneling from
the Home Agent to the Mobile Node.  If you have seen text otherwise
that you think warrants discussion, please post it to the mailing list.

I also do not think that anyone has suggested that we rely on
poorly authenticated Binding Updates.   At least I don't remember
any such discussion.

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

Well, from the above worries, it may be so.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:32:47 +0200

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

=> if you really believe that you should ask for a knob per CN
which falls back to the bidir MN-HA tunnel so:
 - many current Mobile IPv6 implementation are able to send traffic
   without H@ options (mine for instance because H@ support was
   (and still is) very far from to be ubiquous
 - this is very easy to implement in case there is not (yet) supported
 - Charlie Perkins still asks for some lines describing the
   ultra-safe/ultra-not-optimized option. Help needed!

   
=> you have just asked us to choose between the MIPv6 >> MIPv4 dream
and to make MIPv6 as poor as MIPv4 (no route optimization + reverse tunnels)
in the global Internet...

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:22:48 +0100

Hi all,

  could I just ask again about the router advertisment interval. Is it
really intended to be a minimum of

0.05 seconds or 0.5 seconds?

thanks

Theo
UCL/Mobile Systems

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:55:31 -0700

0.05 seconds.

Vijay