Subject: [Mip6] about draft-deng-mip6-vrrp-homeagent-reliability-00.txt

From: "Duan Xiaodong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:45:48 +0800

hi folks,
 
we just submit a internet draft here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deng-mip6-vrrp-homeagent-reliabili
ty-00.txt
 
It already has been discussed in VRRP working group before
 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vrrp/current/msg00582.html
 
We hope to discuss this in mip6 WG by the Paris IETF meeting.
 
comments are welcome.
 
-Hui Deng & Xiaodong

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

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:45:52 +0900

Hi,

Are you only consireding the case where all HAs are on the same link, or
do you also cover the case where HAs are on disctinct links (the MN
would thus have a different HoA).

In addition to this, do you consider the case where both HAs could be
used simultaneously by a given MN ?

Thanks,
Thierry

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:45:48 +0800

---

From: Sachin Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:14:36 -0700

Hi Hui Deng & Xiaodong,

Here are few of my comments on this draft

>From MIP6 Protocol Perspective

1 No method for synchronizing deletes requests has been consider (
Binding Option Format can be enhancement for this )

2 Details can be added for scenario when slave becomes master and L bit
FLAG is set 

3 What about the case when HA is acting as a Home agent on multiple
interfaces and Binding cache has entries corresponding to different
interfaces? 

4 In Section 4.3.3 should it be Lifetime or Remaining Lifetime ( As
Backup can come up after Main )

5 What about the scenario where Backup HA is also having a CN entry
corresponding to MN so when Backup becomes Master both entries will
co-exist ???

6 IPv6 addresses can come in single message so no issue for basic VRRP
but binding cache can quite big , What about Link MTU and 
Why limit the count to 8 bits in VRRP_BC_UPDATE message , so maximum
data that can be sent in the packet is 255* Binding option size , approx
10200 bytes , what about the links that can support Link MTU much larger
then this and number of Binding Cache entries sent are much larger then
255( Considerations regarding the fragmentation ?? ) 

7 what about the security aspects of new VRRP messages defined ???
In basic IPv6 VRRP it is ok as only current IPv6 addresses on link are
being shared but sharing the complete binding cache information
(Location of each MN ) in clear text messages on a link may not be a
good idea.

8 What about the attacks, like some node first sending Priority 0 on
behalf of Master Router and then itself becoming the master ( May be
base VRRP issue )
But this can affect the complete mobility of the network

9 For load balancing (deng-mip6-ha-loadbalance) security aspects should
be considered (Because of basic vulnerability of underline RA message
used)

Regards
Sachin Dutta

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Duan Xiaodong
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 22:46
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Duan Xiaodong'
Subject: [Mip6] about draft-deng-mip6-vrrp-homeagent-reliability-00.txt

hi folks,

we just submit a internet draft here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deng-mip6-vrrp-homeagent-relia
bility-00.txt

comments are welcome.

-Hui Deng & Xiaodong

---

From: Li Qin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:09:50 +0800

> Binding Option Format can be enhancement for this )
We will define this in next version, based on Binding Option extension
or 0 Lifetime.

> 
> 2 Details can be added for scenario when slave becomes master and 
Yes, thank you.

> L bit FLAG is set 
Which L bit?

> interfaces and Binding cache has entries corresponding to different
As defined in basic MIPv6, a separate Binding Cache SHOULD be
maintained for each unicast addresses. VRRP HA rely in the
same link with each other, which means only those BC associated
with the address of same home link prefix is considered in our
solution.

> Backup can come up after Main )
It means remaining lifetime, but we store it in Lifetime field.

> corresponding to MN so when Backup becomes Master both entries will
Yes, is there any problem?

> 255( Considerations regarding the fragmentation ?? ) 
We designed 8 bits in count field because we believed
it is not necessary for HA to send VRRP_BC_UPDATE
once with more than 255 entries.

For example, implementation could limit to no more than one
VRRP_BC_UPDATE per second for HA, then the UPDATE message need only
include those Binding renewed by MN with a second.

Also, a VRRP_BC_UPDATE message MUST not exceed MTU limit even it's less
than 255 Bindings. Bindings will be divided into separate VRRP_BC_UPDATE
messages to satisfy MTU. This will be added in the next version.
> be considered (Because of basic vulnerability of underline RA message
I think 7,8,9, could all be seen as the home link security problem, we
think one hop judgement is enough for operators.

-Qin