Re: [Mobopts] Review of draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-06

Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@nokia.com> Tue, 06 November 2007 22:53 UTC

Return-path: <mobopts-bounces@irtf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpXIs-0002YJ-S8; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:53:50 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpXIs-0002YD-4j for mobopts@irtf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:53:50 -0500
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.170] helo=mgw-ext11.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpXIq-0003QB-82 for mobopts@irtf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:53:50 -0500
Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext11.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id lA6MrI0d029476; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:53:26 +0200
Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:53:11 +0200
Received: from daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.24]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:53:07 -0600
Received: from 10.162.253.2 ([10.162.253.2]) by daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.24]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:53:07 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.4.060510
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:53:23 -0800
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] Review of draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-06
From: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@nokia.com>
To: ext Vijay Devarapalli <vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com>, mobopts@irtf.org, QIU Ying <qiuying@i2r.a-star.edu.sg>, Fan Zhao <fanzhao@marvell.com>
Message-ID: <C3563063.1D18B%rajeev.koodli@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [Mobopts] Review of draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions-06
Thread-Index: Acggx9VYE+Y0RIy7EdyI8AAWy5YJpw==
In-Reply-To: <472F9911.2050105@azairenet.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 22:53:07.0442 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC12BD20:01C820C7]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7da5a831c477fb6ef97f379a05fb683c
Cc:
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org

Hi Vijay,


On 11/5/07 3:28 PM, "ext Vijay Devarapalli"
<vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I reviewed the draft. It still needs a lot of work.
> 
> Section 4.1
> -----------
> Section 4.1 is not making sense to me. The pseudo home address
> changes every time return routability is run. It also changes
> every time the CoA changes. Why does it have to change so often?
> 
> Isn't one pseudo home address per session with a correspondent
> node sufficient?
> 

The pseudo HoA changing at each run of the RR provides some protection
against profiling. Change of CoA upon handover, or a new CoA nonce index or
a new RFC 3041 style CoA configuration makes a round of RR to be run. The
pseudo HoA itself is not inducing new signaling, but a few computational
steps.


> Shouldn't the following be?
> 
>>   privacy keygen token = First (64, Kcn(Home Init Cookie | nonce | 2))
> 
> privacy keygen token = First (64, HMAC_SHA1(Kcn, (Home Init Cookie |
>                                      nonce | 2))

Yes. Noted. 


> 
>>    When a correspondent node receives a Binding Update with a new
>>    destination option carrying the pseudo home address, it must first
>>    compute Kpm as above.
> 
> You probably meant "a destination option carrying a new pseudo home
> address". The home address destination option is always present in
> the BU.
> 

Actually, there is a new Type number for the Destination Option containing
the pseudo HoA, so that the CN can first compute the String and recover the
HoA.


>>    The computation is similar to how it would
>>    compute Kbm, except that the privacy keygen token is computed with
>>    the home address set to all zeros.
> 
> Earlier in section 4.1, the computation of privacy keygen token is
> shown as
> 
>     privacy keygen token = First (64, Kcn(Home Init Cookie | nonce | 2))
> 
> The home address is not used in this computation. So why is the home
> address set to all zeros?
> 

The text above (about HoA being set to zero) must be removed. It is still
lingering around from the previous version.


>> The correspondent node then
>>    stores the nonce indices, and Kbm itself.  It may also send a normal
>>    Binding Acknowledgment to the mobile node.
> 
> Wouldn't this defeat the purpose? The CN should include the pseudo
> home address in the routing header in the binding ack. What does
> "normal Binding Acknowledgment" mean?
> 

"normal" means a regular Back, but you are right it should include the
pseudo HoA.


>>    The privacy management key Kpm can be the same as the binding
>>    management key Kbm and the mobile node generates the pseudo home
>>    address as follows:
>> 
>>       pseudo home address = Enc(Kpm, home address)
>> 
>>       Where Enc(.) is a symmetric key encryption algorithm, for example,
>>       AES.
> 
> hmm... You would need to pick *an* encryption algorithm and convey
> the same to the CN. How would both ends pick the same algorithm
> otherwise?

Right.

> 
> Section 5
> ---------
> I am not sure why section 5 is needed at all. There is absolutely
> no need to generate a pseudo home address with the home agent. The
> MN can always use ESP in tunnel mode for MIPv6 signaling messages
> and hide the home address from the access link. I suggest removing
> sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
> 

You mean in relation to Section 4, this offers no additional benefits?

Thanks for the review.

-Rajeev
-- 
http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev


> Section 5 also does not take into account scenarios where there
> might not be a shared key between the MN and the HA. It also does
> not account for scenarios where the home agent allocates a home
> address for the mobile node as part of MIPv6 bootstrapping.
> 
> I stopped reviewing here. :)
> 
> Vijay
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobopts mailing list
> Mobopts@irtf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts





_______________________________________________
Mobopts mailing list
Mobopts@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts