IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?

"Kent Leung (kleung)" <kleung@cisco.com> Thu, 14 March 2013 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <kleung@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mip4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mip4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131B121F8DAB for <mip4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QtWNqy8Az6VI for <mip4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEC021F8DB7 for <mip4@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=297; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363289925; x=1364499525; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=WEAH+YAKIkBcXu9vexHAohL8WixJ4R5FXKO8u3qEFmI=; b=I4h43z0KcbNVBE9JwAAE96whD7dyvnbd/AzG1BcdIDnBNSSrlE995pDX ynEiNCohvA2lTqHGTVma8uT3lpeueASLG4s18HBd/u5ngGzSRXMaYRUfp 88/Xnyb4JSMq0vjtN4rrHLIyIa56oNM3PEpKvyM1dTUSY2MGkugRjm7jH U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAP0lQlGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABDxQKBZRZ0giwBAQQ6PxACAQgiFBAyJQIEDg2IDMFyjmUxB4JfYQOnWoFUgTaCKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,846,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="187622022"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2013 19:38:45 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2EJcjJL020098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:38:45 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.8]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:38:44 -0500
From: "Kent Leung (kleung)" <kleung@cisco.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?
Thread-Index: AQHOIOVj5IvDl6+vSUiwtmVfOnfckpilj5BAgABVXgD//6zD0IAAVrCA//+sqlA=
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:38:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CD85F32117029D4F9AEF48BDEF5536AB10215C28@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com>
References: <514206FE.7050807@gmail.com> <3359F724933DFD458579D24EAC769098857A51DC@Redwood.usa.awardsolutions.com> <51421CB9.1080100@gmail.com> <CD85F32117029D4F9AEF48BDEF5536AB10215B92@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <514223C4.8010905@gmail.com> <CD85F32117029D4F9AEF48BDEF5536AB10215BCB@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> <514226A9.9020700@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <514226A9.9020700@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.115.74]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ahmad Muhanna <amuhanna@awardsolutions.com>, Mobile IPv4 Mailing List <mip4@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?
X-BeenThere: mip4@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility for IPv4 <mip4.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mip4>
List-Post: <mailto:mip4@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4>, <mailto:mip4-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 19:38:46 -0000

It needs to have the time, even if it does second registration.  It's not a problem it takes longer (we can send easily two messages).  But the second message will also be refused by the HA because it still has the wrong time.

KL> Why is the timestamp in the 2nd RRQ wrong?

Kent

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email