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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi Romain, all,


> 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.
> 


Yes, you are right.
Sorry
 for my misunderstanding, I was mislead by Sec. 6.3 in RFC 6275 which 
did not clearly state that home address destination option is only 
required for route optimized packets.

draft-sarikaya-mext-multicastdmm-03.txt

clarifies it, I hope.

Regards,

Behcet