Subject: [mobile-ip] RE: Comments to draft-kassi-mobileip-dmi-00.txt

From: KASSI-LAHLOU Mohammed FTRD/DMI/CAE <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 14:12:57 +0100

Hello,

I agree with you, the MN must be authenticated by the access network before
it can exchange a traffic with others (HA, CN...). This will be the case for
all visited (foreign) networks of mobile service provider. And it will be
the same for other mobility situation (between company sites...).

For Input connections, the suggestion is to establish the communication
without using Mobile IP. The security issue between MN and CN is not
discussed in this draft. This issue is a common issue for the mobility in IP
networks.

I'm not attending the meeting, thanks for your comments.

Best regards,

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Pekka Nikander [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : mercredi 21 mars 2001 18:07
À : KASSI-LAHLOU Mohammed FTRD/DMI/CAE
Cc : [email-masked]; Claude Castelluccia
Objet : Comments to draft-kassi-mobileip-dmi-00.txt

KASSI-LAHLOU Mohammed FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:

> If the home address belongs to a virtual network or if at every new
> communication it uses the address obtained in the visited network as a
> source address (as specified in draft-kassi-mobileip-dmi-00.txt) you can
> know that the mobile node is in movement but without having a point of

Nice draft.  Very much in line with our Homeless Mobile IPv6 thinking,
but not going quite that far as we attempt to go.

However, I think that even though the Security Considerations section
may be technically correct, in the practise the situation is different.
That is, one may reasonably assume that a MN has a permanent security
association (in some form) with its permanent or real HA.  However,
I have serious doubts about our ability to provide a scaleable solution
for creating security associations between an MN and the temporary
HA used to forward connections opened while at a foreign link.
Yes, I know, with AAA we most probably will be able to do that, but
I don't believe that AAA will ever scale enough to cover all of the
Internet.  (This is not a technical concern but a deployment concern.)

The case of not having a (conceptual) security association between a MN
and its HA is much harder from the security point of view than the case
where you do have such a security association.  Your grounds for providing
authorization evidence to the CN are much slimmer.  

I suggest that you reconsider your draft in the light of the Mobile IPv6
security discussion to be held tomorrow at the Mobileip WG meeting.

--Pekka

---

From: KASSI-LAHLOU Mohammed FTRD/DMI/CAE <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:12:57 +0200

Hello,

Best regards,

-----Message d'origine-----

--Pekka