Subject: [Mip6] pinehole Issue on draft-bajko-mip6-rrtfw-01

From: wenson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:58:26 +0800

Hi,Gabor:
In section 6,it said:
-->>In order to facilitate the communication between the mobile nodes, 
  >>   firewalls on the data path between an MN and a CN could also 
  >>   create the following pinholes automatically: 
      
  >>   - a pinhole from the address of the CN to the HoA of the MN 
  >>     present in the type 2 Routing Header 
  >>   - - a pinhole from the CoA of the MN to the HoA of the CN      
  >>present in the Destination Options extension Header 
Here one pinhole is opened between the CoA of the MN and the HoA of the CN in your draft, but in my view, this pinhole should be opened between the CoA of the MN and the address of the CN with HoA of MN presented in the Destination Options extension Header.Also another pinhole is created between the address of the Cn and CoA of the MN with the HoA of the MN presented in the type 2 Routing Header.The firewall should be aware of type 2 routing header and destination option header when filtering packets to and from. 

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