Re: [MEXT] Finishing RFC 3775bis
Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Wed, 06 October 2010 19:42 UTC
Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7BF3A7111 for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.514
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STrCKKjZPWKf for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5D23A7074 for <mext@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id o96JwWIg032124; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 14:58:35 -0500
Received: from [142.133.10.113] (147.117.20.213) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.179) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.234.1; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 15:42:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4CACD0EF.2010603@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:41:35 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "charliep@computer.org" <charliep@computer.org>
References: <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1F68025E4E@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <BF345F63074F8040B58C00A186FCA57F1F6826E7BD@NALASEXMB04.na.qualcomm.com> <4CA12C64.1090606@computer.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CA12C64.1090606@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mext@ietf.org" <mext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Finishing RFC 3775bis
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:42:12 -0000
Hi Charlie, I am happy with the resolution for issue #13 and I think the document is ready to go forward on the publication process. Thanks Suresh On 10-09-27 07:44 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote: > Hello folks, > > One of the new requirements for rfc3775bis is a section > detailing the changes from RFC 3775. Here's what I wrote > up. If I forgot one, please remind me and I will > add it. It's quite painful to go through rfcdiff, yow. > The numbers are the issue numbers from: > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mext/trac/report/6 > > =========================================================== > > #1 Last Accepted SQN [Ahmad Muhanna] > > Solution: specify that the mobile node update its binding > sequence number to match the sequence number given in the > Binding Acknowledgement (if the Binding Acknowledgement > correctly passes authentication and the status is 135 > (Sequence Number out of window). > > > #4 Remove references to site-local addresses [George Tsirtsis] > > fixed. > > #5 Wrong protocol number used in discussion about checksum > pseudo-header: > > fixed. > > #8 Application using the care-of address [Julien Laganier] > > Cite IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection [RFC5014]. > > #10 The usage of "HA lifetime" [Ryuji Wakikawa] > > The mobile node SHOULD store the list of home agents for later > use in case the home agent currently managing the mobile node's > care-of address forwarding should become unavailable. > > #11 De-registration when returning home [Vijay Devarapalli] > > To be able to send and receive packets using its home address > from the home link, the mobile node MUST send a Binding Update to > its home agent to instruct its home agent to no longer intercept > or tunnel packets for it. Until the mobile node sends such a > de-registration Binding Update, it MUST NOT attempt to send and > receive packets using its home address from the home link. > > > #12 BErr sent by HA too, not only by CN [Alexandru Petrescu] > > Fixed. > > #13 Home Link Detection [Suresh Krishnan] > > Proposal: add new section [11.5.2] for Home Link Detection, > drawing on Internet Draft draft-krishnan-mext-hld. > > #14 References to Bootstrapping [Vijay Devarapalli] > > Cited "Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026 > > #17 Multi-homed mobile node can cause routing loop between > home agents [Benjamin Lim] > > Added advisory security considerations in section 15.1, to > highlight risk of routing loop among HAs (e.g., in 3GPP): > > A malicious mobile node associated to multiple home agents > could create a routing loop amongst them. This would happen > when a mobile node binds one home address located on a first > home agent to another home address on a second home agent. > > #18 Subject: Issues regarding Home Address Option & ICMP / > Binding errors > [Fabian Mauchle] > > Proposal: Use the value in the Next Header field {50 (ESP), > 51 (AH), 135 (Mobility Header)} to determine, if a Binding > Cache entry is required. > > Proposal: To avoid spoofing, add to the first paragraph in > 11.3.6: If the source of the ICMP error message is a Home > Agent, it MUST be ignored. > > Proposal: If the Binding Error Message was sent by the Home > Agent, the Mobile Node SHOULD send a Binding Update to the > Home Agent according to Section 11.7.1. > > > #19 BU de-registration race condition [Kilian Weniger] > > Problem arises if de-registration arrives at Home Agent > before an immediately preceding Binding Update. > > Solution: Home Agent defers BCE removal after sending > the Binding Acknowledgement. > > #6 Minor editorial corrections and updates > > NOT done: > #3 BRR, BErr are sent by HA too, not only by CN > [Alexandru Petrescu] > #7 DSMIPv6 BU format and RFC 3775 [Tero Kauppinen] > #9 Simultaneous Mobility [Ashutosh Dutta] > #15 BRR sent by HA too, not only by CN [Ahmad Muhanna] > #16 HA behaviour upon MN returning Home [Pascal Thubert] > > > =========================================================== > > Regards, > Charlie P. > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
- [MEXT] Unknow status code / Closing RFC 3775bis Laganier, Julien
- [MEXT] MUST NOT (was Re: Unknow status code / Clo… Olivier Mehani
- Re: [MEXT] MUST NOT (was Re: Unknow status code /… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] MUST NOT (was Re: Unknow status code /… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [MEXT] MUST NOT (was Re: Unknow status code /… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] MUST NOT (was Re: Unknow status code /… Arnaud Ebalard
- Re: [MEXT] Unknow status code / Closing RFC 3775b… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Unknow status code / Closing RFC 3775b… Laganier, Julien
- [MEXT] Finishing RFC 3775bis Charles E. Perkins
- [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and, Re… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and… Charles E. Perkins
- Re: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-07.txt; and… Laganier, Julien
- Re: [MEXT] Finishing RFC 3775bis Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [MEXT] Finishing RFC 3775bis Laganier, Julien