Subject: RE: [seamoby] RE: Authentication & Authorization "in-the-large" w as Re: [seamob y] ct problem statement

From: Phillip Neumiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:13:09 -0400

Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
 
> > MN>> I am not quite sure I understand your point. I am not sure
> > how spectrum overlap comes in?
> 
> Sorry, what I meant was that the service areas are close 
> enough that it
> makes sense to CT. If there is a long no-service time between 
> both service
> areas, then CT doesn't really make that much sense, right?

Pat,

There are companies that build products (WRQ's reflection comes
to mind) that freeze the state of the IP stack (gracefully in
the application sense), until the flow of IP traffic can resume.
This is sort of an ultra-slow handover.  I see no reason why THIS
can not be made seamless with CT.  Why should CT not be capable
of accomodating this Pat?

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:29:30 -0700

> of accomodating this Pat?

Sure, they could, but what is seamless in this sense? The user has
no service for some time, so what is an extra couple of seconds while
signalling occurs over the air to update the local ARs state?? The
user would probably not even notice.

Actually, you seem to imply something that I am not sure that I've
been thinking about that much, which is the mobile updating the
AR's state. This, btw, can be problematic, since the mobile doesn't
necessarily share an SA with the AR (hence DoS attacks), and a
malicious mobile could send bogus (mal-formed) CT packets in an 
attempt to crash (or cause mis-behaving) ARs.

Something to think about in the DoS space.

PatC

---

From: "Emil Sturniolo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:53:02 -0400

Phil, et al,

	One minor correction. As of 3/30 of this year WRQ spun us out as a separate
company - NetMotion Wireless Inc. (www.NetMotionWireless.com). 	Sorry I've
been in stealth mode on this list but trying to get a startup off the ground
can be quite challenging. As for your comment Phil, CT should be compatible
as well as beneficial to our technology by enhancing roam times. Not having
to reestablish the state of the SA, compression, etc. each time a transition
occurs would allow for much smoother handoffs. From our experience,
depending on the OS, handoffs today can take a significantly long time
(many, many seconds). Be glad to privately answer any questions I can on how
our product works.

	I have one other comment on DoS attacks. It seems that much of this thread
was focused on looking at this from a wireless perspective. I like to
reinforce that even though wireless maybe the worst case, we must also
consider transferring state between wireless and wired infrastructures. From
conversations we have had with our customers, all indications point to the
fact that some of their mobile devices will be tethered to a network at
least part of the time.  As Pat said, we need to insure that we do not
create any new avenues for denial of service attacks, no matter how the
mobile device is connected to the network.

Cordially,
Emil Sturniolo
[email-masked]
330-723-9099 Office
330-461-0326 Mobile/Vmail
www.NetMotionWireless.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
This message contains information that
may be confidential and privileged.  Unless
you are the addressee or are authorized by
the addressee, you may not use, copy or
disclose the information contained in this
message.  If you have received this
message in error, please delete it and
advise the sender.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Phillip Neumiller
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:13 AM
To: 'Pat Calhoun'; Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1
Cc: Arthur Ross; Charlie Perkins; Kulwinder Atwal; 'seamoby';
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [seamoby] RE: Authentication & Authorization "in-the-large" was
Re: [seamob y] ct problem statement

Hi,

Pat,

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Arthur Ross <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:12:21 -0700

>mobile device is connected to the network.
I VERY STRONGLY support this view. "Mobility" should be viewed in the
broadest possible sense. Changes in point of attachment may entail changes
of technology, e.g. one flavor of air interface to another, wireless to
wired, one LAN to another, etc. At least we should not PRECLUDE such
transitions, even though in the short term they may not be too common.

Also, in this vein, the question of what IS the data source/sink entity
executing the motion may eventually rise to the fore. The current view
("host"), as I have said before, may be too narrow, rooted in the
historical model and insufficiently forward-looking.

   -- ahmr