Re: [Mipshop] [Fwd: Re: Comments draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-06]

Hi Vijay, Heejin,

Regarding the removal of references to 802.21 due that being too SDO
specific, .21 is developed by the IEEE 802 LMSC just as .16e is. It is
the same SDO, so  the reference to .16e and .21 stand on equal footing. 

In Section 4, the MN is described as using native .16 L2 mechanisms for
network topology discovery. Although not specifically designed to
facilitate intra .16 handover, 802.21 also provides a service that can
provide the topology. The service (information service query)  is a MN
'pull', so is not subject to the particular DoS attack mentioned in
other reviews.

In Section 5, the adjective 'close'is used in reference to the use of
802.21, FMIPv6 and 802.16e. Since both 802.21 and FMIPv6 provide link
independent interfaces and services, this characterization can give the
wrong impression. In general MIP acceleration techniques and .21
services have at times been mis-labeled as 'close' when they achieve the
performance gains while providing standardized link independent
interfaces and services.

In Section 5.1, a review was concerned about the possibility of an
attacker triggering a flood of link detected events from the 802.21
implementation. This kind of attack will cause the MN to indicated some
kind of signal upward from the L2 implementation if the MN is listening
for these .16 messages. When .21 is being used, the link event is
'consumed' or 'interpreted' and presented upward in a media independent
fashion. It is possible (probably typical) for a .21 implementation to
have information that could help mitigate this attack. In suchi
mplementations, the MIHF would receive the link event from the .16e L2,
but deliver selected events upwards to FMIPv6.

In Section 5.2, the scenario does not include network initiated HO as a
possibility. Is it within the possible use cases to discuss such an
option?

Thanks for taking on this work. We really need these solutions to be
clear.

Best Regards,
Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org 
>[mailto:mipshop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Vijay Devarapalli
>Sent: 26 February, 2008 16:36
>To: 'Mipshop'
>Subject: [Mipshop] [Fwd: Re: Comments draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-06]
>
>FYI.
>
>I forwarded a bunch of comments that we got as a result of the 
>IETF last call on draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-06. Heejin has 
>been addressing those comments and revising the draft. If 
>anyone has comments on the changes being made, now would be a 
>good time to speak up.
>
>Vijay
>
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop