Re: [Mip6] review of draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-00.txt

Kilian Weniger wrote:
>>the MN could refrain from asking the HA to do the DNS update.
>>as described in draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-00.txt,
>>the HA does not update the DNS entry for the MN unless the
>>MN requests it.
> 
> 
> yes, but if the MN does not request DNS updates after bootstrapping with
> a local HA, it is not reachable for other nodes - at least not at the
> HoA belonging to the local HA. Consequently, if location privacy is
> required, efficient routing is not possible for communication sessions
> not initiated by MN or for mobile-to-mobile communication (e.g., VoIP
> sessions). 
> 
> If my understanding is correct, I think it might be good to have some
> text about that in draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-00.txt,
> especially because location privacy and routing efficiency is mentioned
> in draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrap-ps-03.txt as a motiviation for the
> bootstrapping solution. 

I think I understand your point now. if the MN acquires a local
HA and HoA and the MN's DNS entry is updated with the local HoA,
then this reveals where the MN is located. there isn't much we
can do here. maybe just point this out, as Jim recommended, in
the Security Considerations section. (somebody a while ago
suggested adding location privacy considerations section to
every draft :)

Vijay

> 
> Kilian
> 
> 
>>>An alternative solution to this problem is to reverse 
>>
>>tunnel to local
>>
>>>HAs, but keep the HoA of MN unchanged. This approach is, 
>>
>>e.g., proposed
>>
>>>in draft-weniger-rota-00.txt.
>>>
>>>BTW, shouldn't the QNAME be set to "_mip6_ipv6.example.com" 
>>
>>instead of
>>
>>>"mip6.example.com" in the DNS lookup by service name 
>>
>>example in section
>>
>>>5.1.2 of draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-00.txt? 
>>
>>yes.
>>
>>Vijay
>>
>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6