Re: [Seamoby] DoCoMo Implementation Issues with CTP

"Raghu" <dendukuri@docomolabs-usa.com> Fri, 20 February 2004 20:04 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10045 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:04:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuGsg-0007Hc-W8 for seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:04:15 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1KK4EXY027990 for seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:04:14 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuGsg-0007HF-M9 for seamoby-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:04:14 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09947 for <seamoby-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:04:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuGsd-0004vC-00 for seamoby-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:04:11 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuGri-0004s6-00 for seamoby-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:03:15 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuGrT-0004oh-00 for seamoby-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:02:59 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuGrU-0005xp-HD; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:03:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AuGqe-0004xK-RB for seamoby@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:02:08 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA09795 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:02:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuGqb-0004n0-00 for seamoby@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:02:05 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AuGph-0004jH-00 for seamoby@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:01:09 -0500
Received: from key1.docomolabs-usa.com ([216.98.102.225] helo=fridge.docomolabs-usa.com ident=fwuser) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AuGom-0004fi-00 for seamoby@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:00:12 -0500
Message-ID: <02fc01c3f7eb$f832a630$1c6015ac@dcldendukuri>
From: Raghu <dendukuri@docomolabs-usa.com>
To: seamoby@ietf.org
References: <059c01c3f5a4$63e9e360$936015ac@dclkempt40> <40341585.127EE1A7@iprg.nokia.com> <023601c3f744$49c01df0$1c6015ac@dcldendukuri> <40355C74.22D0A058@iprg.nokia.com> <024601c3f750$0902ab00$1c6015ac@dcldendukuri> <40356445.C6D3270@iprg.nokia.com> <02 <40365DFB.1EF60B38@iprg.nokia.com>
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] DoCoMo Implementation Issues with CTP
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:58:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby>, <mailto:seamoby-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:seamoby@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:seamoby-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby>, <mailto:seamoby-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > > Why is it necessary to know PAR's IP when the contexts
> > > are already there ?
> > For two reasons,
> > 1. To avoid picking up of any Stale contexts due to frequent moving of
MN.
> >
>
> I cannot readily figure out how PAR's IP helps here..
>
For example,
Consider 3 ARs  A, B & C
MN moves from A to B, so A sends PCTD to B.
But MN never sends CTAR to B but instead moves to C
and sends CTAR to C with pAR as A.
Now C gets the contexts from A and MN stays here
for a short time and now moves back to A and immediately to B.
Again A sends PCTD to B.
When MN sends a CTAR to B, which PCTD should be used ?

Also incase of Mobile IP where MN IP doesnot change,
and MN moves from A to B (A sends PCTD to B,
MN doesnot send CTAR) instead moves to C then
to B(C sends PCTD to B, MN sends CTAR to B),
which PCTD should B use ?

>
> > 2. Security.
> >
>
> If the token matches, the MN must have had an SA
> with PAR.
>
Probably security is not a major concern as
CTP assumes prior SA (like IPSEC) between ARs to transfer CTP.

regards,
Raghu


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby