Subject: [Mip6] Question about draft-haddad-mipv6-bub-01

From: "amalek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:28:24 +0100

Dear BUB authors,

We noticed a problem in your draft concerning the source address of the
BU. Consider the situation when the BUB test and the DH exchange have
been completed successfully. Then your draft says:

   When MN1 switches to a new network (i.e., gets a new care-of 
   address), it sends a BU message to MN2 on the path going through
   the two HAs. MN1 MAY duplicate the BU message and another copy
   on the direct path.

What is the source address of the mandatory BU going through the HAs?

The HoA? Then, how does the CN determine the CoA? You say "The MNs MUST
NOT use the alternate care-of address option in the BU messages". And
--- independent from the way the CoA is included in the BU --- why can't
a MN bomb/flood a 3rd party this way?

The CoA? Then the BU would leave the first HA (i.e. the MN-HA tunnel)
with a topologically incorrect source address. If ingress filtering is
applied (what you assume, right?), it would be dropped. If ingress
filtering is not applied, again, why can't a MN bomb/flood a 3rd party
this way?

BTW a more general question: Why do you want the BU to go through both
HAs? Is it because of what you call "double jumping problem"?

Another question: If you assume ingress filtering to be applied
everywhere, don't you think we can find a simpler solution --- less
complex than DH and RR?

And a last question: Why do you think BUB should only be applied to
scenarios where both nodes are located in foreign networks? What happens
if one of them returns to its home network?

Best Regards
Abbas and Tobias

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6