Subject: [MEXT] Issue #16 on 3775bis

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:03:50 +0100

Hi Charlie:

There was little change to ticket 16 for awhile.

The last update on the ticket said:

"
Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>: 
- security: The HA defends an address that it does not own so it can not
prove it owns it. With SeND, it would just be nonsense for a HA to try
and reclaim SeND based addresses when a MN proves ownership on link. 
Well, if SeND is not being used, does it make sense for the home agent
to allow the mobile node to claim its address, until the mobile node
de-registers with a secure binding update? What if a misbehaving mobile
node on the home link tries to claim the legitimate mobile node's home
address while the home agent is defending the address? 
The proposal to fix this issue is to let the MN use DAD/oDAD over the
Home Link with its Home Address. A proxy would defend the address
without the O bit, 
This would modify the existing behavior. For unsolicited neighbor
advertisements, the Home Agent sets the 'O' bit. See section 10.4.1. 
"

Vijay is right, I'm asking for a change from 3775; OTOH RFC 3775 is in
contradiction with RFC 4861 (7.2.8. Proxy Neighbor Advertisements) that
states clearly that "All solicited proxy Neighbor Advertisement messages
MUST have the Override flag set to zero." 

So what's best, maintain a debatable choice made in 3775 or comply with
base ND rules?

Pascal 
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext