[MEXT] [RFC3375bis] Expected BU format and processing / associated impacts
arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard) Mon, 01 December 2008 05:41 UTC
Return-Path: <mext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: monami6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-monami6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CE33A691C;
Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:41:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6143A691C
for <mext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:41:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 7snOAcoKHDME for <mext@core3.amsl.com>;
Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from copper.chdir.org (copper.chdir.org [88.191.97.87])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8578D3A6813
for <mext@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2001:7a8:78df:2:20d:93ff:fe55:8f78]
(helo=localhost.localdomain)
by copper.chdir.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <arno@natisbad.org>)
id 1L71X9-0002nh-2U; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:41:23 +0100
X-Hashcash: 1:20:081201:mext@ietf.org::6QDaIZxi3U16vwYk:00004C66
X-Hashcash: 1:20:081201:whaddad@qualcomm.com::3FUAHkChOnVVgJ1n:000000000000000000000000000000000000000002FFw
From: arno@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard)
To: IETF MEXT WG ML <mext@ietf.org>
X-PGP-Key-URL: http://natisbad.org/arno@natisbad.org.asc
X-Fingerprint: 47EB 85FE B99A AB85 FD09 46F3 0255 957C 047A 5026
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:39:22 -0800
Message-ID: <87y6z0e9o5.fsf@natisbad.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [MEXT] [RFC3375bis] Expected BU format and processing / associated
impacts
X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>,
<mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext>
List-Post: <mailto:mext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>,
<mailto:mext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, First, sorry for the late post, just before the deadline (Dec 05). While studying the impacts of MIPv6 Home Link Detection mechanism in IPsec environments [1], I spent some time carefully rereading the associated reference documents (3775, 3776, 4877, ...). >From that reading, I came to the conclusion that the various possible formats allowed for the BU (when on a foreign network, at home, for deregistration or not, ...) and the way BU should be processed by the HA leave room for interoperability issues and possibly threats. This includes handling of AltCoA option and also HAO/RH2. I think the spec is too lose on those topics and rfc3775bis could be a good opportunity to make things clearer/tighter for implementors on *some* of those points. [1] is a work in progress (read 'raw material'), extracted from a bigger document, which explains the unusual format (pdf) and the fact I have currently not found the time to perform some of the tests I intend to do (on existing implementations). Read it with some salt. Anyway, I'd be interested if some among you could take a look at the document and see if some of the points raised could be handled in the context of rfc377bis (appendices contains the interesting quotes from the reference documents). Better stated explicitly: I don't expect the "Home Link Detection threat in IPsec environment" topic covered in the doc to be discussed or solved in the context of rfc3775bis. Comments welcome, Cheers, a+ [1]: http://rfc.1924.fr/ipsec-hld-threats.pdf _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
- [MEXT] [RFC3375bis] Expected BU format and proces… Arnaud Ebalard