Re: [MEXT] Some questions on draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm

[Romain KUNTZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi Behcet, 

On Aug 15, 2011, at 8:11, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>> RFC 6275 says destination option is used in a packet
>>>     sent by a mobile node while away from home, to inform the recipient
>>>     of the mobile node's home address.
>>> So we need it. I will clarify no route optimization statement, which means that there is no need 
>>> 
>>>   1 Home Test Init
>>> 
>>>        2  Care-of Test Init
>>> 
>>>        3  Home Test
>>> 
>>>        4  Care-of Test
>>> message exchanges.
>> 
>> If I remember correctly, RFC6275 requires the CN to have a binding cache entry 
>> to process destination options from the MN, which requires the return 
>> routability procedure. 
>> 
> 
> As it says in RFC 6275 the destination option is needed to inform the recipient
> of the mobile node's home address
> 
> 
> This is the functionality that is needed for dmm. There is no need for return routability procedure.
> That means dmm can not work with an unmodified CN, which is the most important impact.

I'm not sure you get my point: it is a security breach to use the destination option with a CN without having a proper binding registration & return routability procedure.

Regards,
Romain