Re: [nemo] RE: RO between MR and CN

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pascal,

sorry for the delay, but as you may notice, the 18th has arrived :-)

As a co-author of the paper, let me give you p.o.v. of this issue.


El 15/10/2004, a las 9:15, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribió:

> Hi Carlos:
>
> I need to give you my review on MIRON.
>
> Note that your text is being unfair with RRH about the security 
> issues. Security is debated in the draft, if you care to read that 
> part.

The content of the paper is the result of the analysis of the different 
proposals. Yes, we have read the RRH draft and its security 
considerations section. In particular, we have read the part that 
states:

   "This section is not complete; further work is needed to analyze and
    solve the security problems of record and source route."

Pay particular attention to the "solve" part.

This seems perfectly coherent with the comment presented in the paper 
stating that:

"It  has been identified that this approach [RRH] has security 
concerns."

Note that we only say concerns while in the draft it is stated 
"problems"

> There have been a number of drafts that tried to propose more secure 
> solutions based on misunderstanding of what the threats might be. They 
> all died. Then there was Fan's very good study, (Fan, we need the 
> update), but still, most of the issues were moot.
>
> The point is that to date, there is no specific attack against RRH 
> that was identified to make any good sense, compared to, say, scramble 
> the radio wave or anything else a MITM might do. You understand that 
> propagating ideas like 'there are security issues' without being 
> specific is prejudicial...

IMHO the paper propagates less this kind of ideas that the draft 
itself. As i mentioned, it is the draft that states that the RRH has 
"security problems" that need to be solved.

I guess that if you do not want to propagate this type of ideas, i 
would suggest you to remove this type of statements from the draft.

>  For instance, you might want to take a specific attack and show how 
> MIRON handles it better or something.
>

As you may notice, the MIRON paper is not about RRH security but about 
the MIRON proposal (moreover is not even about MIRON security), and 
considering the length restrictions on a paper, i guess that it isn't 
possible to include examples about all the statements provided.

Regards, marcelo

PS: I would like to apologize to the list about this mail, since it is 
clearly out of scope for the list. I won't sent any other mails about 
this specific issue. OTOH, i will be sending a constructive mail 
containing some security analysis about RRH, hoping to contribute with 
that effort



> Pascal
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: jeudi 14 octobre 2004 12:08
>> To: Masafumi Watari
>> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); [e-mail]; María Calderón
>> Subject: Re: [nemo] RE: RO between MR and CN
>>
>> Hi Pascal, Masafumi,
>>
>> El mié, 13-10-2004 a las 19:08, Masafumi Watari escribió:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:34:06 +0200,
>>> "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tania
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking things like of snooping. MR might intercept all 
>>>> packets to LFN, recognize
>> a HoT and keep it. I remember discussing that with Alex long ago... 
>> Anyway, we try to say
>> "don't take that path" as opposed to describe a solution in details.
>>>
>>> I don't think its possible to provide RO while keeping the RR 
>>> function
>>> of MIPv6 untouched.  It would probably require modification of the
>>> packet at MR to use the HoA opt and the routing header for every
>>> packet, if we want to keep the MIPv6 spec as is.
>>
>> 	Yes, one possible solution is the MR performing all the RR and RO
>> signalling on behalf of the LFNs of the NEMO, in order to provide RO 
>> for
>> LFNs that are communicating to CNs outside the NEMO. This is actually
>> the solution we have proposed in MIRON (see my previous e-mail if you
>> want a pointer to it), so the MR, as you said, has to process the
>> packets sent/received by a LFN in order to insert HoA DO/remove RH. I
>> agree that it could have some performance concerns if the process is
>> performed to every LFN-CN "flow", but as we have already discussed in 
>> a
>> previous thread, some mechanism should be used to perform the RO in a
>> reasonable way.
>>
>>>
>>>> It seems preferable, for instance, to establish a MR-CR tunnel and 
>>>> exchange fine grained
>> routes for MNPs over the tunnel (route projection).
>>>
>>> I think I agree on this.
>>
>> 	This is, IMHO, a different approach, in which the RO requires some
>> support from the routing infrastructure, and that present some
>> advantages. But, OTOH, solutions based on MR-CN RO are also 
>> interesting
>> IMHO, as an approach that does not require support in the routing
>> infrastructure and puts the RO support functionality only in the 
>> edges,
>> i.e. the CN and the MR (if the transparency to the MNNs is required, 
>> the
>> MR is the other edge in which RO mechanisms can be added).
>>
>> 	What do you think?
>>
>> 	Kind Regards,
>>
>> 	Carlos J.
>>>
>>> Masafumi Watari
>>>
>>>> Pascal
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Tânia Pinto Calçada [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: mercredi 13 octobre 2004 13:16
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>>>>> Subject: RO between MR and CN
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested in route optimization between the MR and the CN. I 
>>>>> read the taxonomy
>> draft
>>>>> (draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-02.txt), and several other 
>>>>> documents related to RO:
>>>>>
>>>>> draft-jeong-nemo-ro-ndproxy-02.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> draft-leekj-nemo-ro-pd-02.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> draft-na-nemo-gen-ro-model-00.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> draft-na-nemo-path-control-header-00.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> draft-wakikawa-nemo-orc-00.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> ROProblem.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also read some threads of the NEMO mailing list 
>>>>> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-
>>>>> archive/web/nemo/current/index.html <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-
>>>>> archive/web/nemo/current/index.html> , however I am still looking 
>>>>> for a document that
>>>>> describes a solution for the RO between the MR and the CN.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The taxonomy draft says at section 2:
>>>>>
>>>>> "A major issue with this form of optimization is that the 
>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>
>>>>>    principle of the MIPv6 Reverse Routability (RR) test is broken. 
>>>>>  The
>>>>>
>>>>>    RR test is meant to ensure the care-of address (CoA) and the 
>>>>> home
>>>>>
>>>>>    address (HoA) are collocated. With a mobile network, when the MR
>>>>>
>>>>>    performs RO on behalf of the MNNs, the CoA in BU will be the 
>>>>> MR's
>>>>>
>>>>>    CoA.  Thus, a MNN is reachable via the CoA, but not at the CoA.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    Some tricks may be performed on the fly by the MRs but it seems 
>>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>    a clean MR-to-CN optimization for Nemo will impact the CN 
>>>>> function."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can somebody point the "tricks" that may be performed, or indicate 
>>>>> a document that
>> explores
>>>>> this subject?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tania Calcada
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano - http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
>> GPG FP: 58C3 4227 AF8D 01D4 5A09  A617 E6F2 B23E DAD6 AA40
>
>
------------------------------------------
Please note that my former email address
[e-mail] is no longer in use
Please send mail to:
marcelo at it dot uc3m dot es
------------------------------------------