Subject: [Mip6] first impressions of omipv6-03

From: Greg Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:14:19 +1100

Hi

I've just (finally) read OMIPv6, sorry about the delay.

Here are my first impressions.

I've not done an in depth analysis of the protocols yet
(not that I'm capable of doing one), but the basic premise seems
sound.

The document, though, doesn't look quite like a specification.
It's OK to get the idea of the protocol, but doesn't state
up front what the motivation for OMIPv6 is.

The abstract is promising, but the introduction doesn't really
explain the difference between RR and OMIPv6, and spell out the
benefits.

I find the "this technique was specified originally in [XX]",
to be distracting, when they could be summarized and referenced
from the Acknowledgements Section.

The Design Rationale may be something which migrates to an appendix,
since it's actually talking about individual components of the
mechanism.

The big picture hasn't really been spelled out by then.
At this stage, there really should be a summary of operations
(maybe even without signalling), which defines what roughly can be
done with OMPIv6, and the underlying principle (proof of identity
using CGA and CoA proofs).

Overall, I think I get it,  I think it will work,
and may be worth investigating further.

I'd like to see more interest from the WG and another version
before it became a WG or RG document.

Concerns
---------

It looks like the CN may be forced to send two messages for one
of the MN's with the Pre-binding-Test and the
pre-binding-acknowledgement.

Is this the case?

Is it possible to make the MN send two messages since this is the
initial contact?

Terminology
-----------

When it talks about through HA, does it mean the MN is using its
own Home Address (reverse tunnelled through its own HA)?

When it mentions 'directly', does it mean that the message has a
source address of the MN's CoA?

simultaneously moving may indicate cell transition at the same time.

It sounds better to delineate whether the devices are:

1) both MNs

or

2) simultaneously changing subnets.

Shared Key Option
------------------

The shared key option is 16 octets, and MUST be encrypted using
the private key.

I'm not sure, but I guess that the size of something encrypted with an
RSA key is the length of the RSA modulus.  Did you really want to
specify that the key is encrypted with (only a fixed) 1024 bit RSA key?

Care-of-Address Tests
---------------------
it seems that the primary proof of ownership is over the Home Address.
Isn't it possible to prove the Care-of-Address is valid, if the same
CGA public/private key pair, and an additional CGA parameters set
are transmitted in the BU?

If the MN was able to prove its identity and location in the BU,
the only issues would be computation on the MN and on the CN.
If the porrf for the Home Address came first, then this may be
applicable.

Couldn't this be used with credit-based authorization to delay the
timing requirements for a care-of-test (or something)?

IPR
----
Yeah I know, but it's supposed to be an optimization on top of MIPv6.

It's worth working out if both Ericsson and Microsoft want this one
under similar to SEND terms.

Future work
-----------

I know that you've worked on this for a while.
I think that in terms of specification, though this is at about the
same level of knowledge as EBU (with CBA slightly behind).
EBU I think has enough promise to look at standardization now
or later.

Is it worth getting these (EBU/OMIPv6) out as experimental in the
IRTF ASAP?   These or components of them could come out later as
IETF standards track work.

Transport area did this recently with the Eifel response algorithm,
which has just gone Proposed Standard. (3522 and 4015)

Greg

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6