Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: Connecthathon issue 277: responding to H=1 at a CN

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:44:04 +0200

Hi Jari,

> Let me try to make sure we see this the same way. The following
> table gives the action of a CN upon receiving a BU protected
> with none/RR/IPsec with H=0/1:
> 
> Case                          Action
> ----------------------------------------------
> H=0, none                     Silent discard (missing RR)
> H=0, RR                       Process, send BA with Status=0
> H=0, IPsec                    Silent discard (missing RR)
> H=1, none                     Silent discard (missing IPsec)
> H=1, RR                       Silent discard (missing IPsec)
> H=1, IPsec                    Process, send BA with Status=131 or 132
> 
> Is this correct or did you want some entries in a different way?
> Lets try to agree on this table first, then figure out the text
> changes necessary.

Jari, when you mean missing RR, do you mean there are no Nonce indices option and the BAD option in the BU?

Why not informing the MN of what is missing? If you don't inform the MN, it will keep sending the same buggy BU, instead if you inform it it could correct it. Or are we afraid of DoS attack?
The table would be:

 Case                          Action
 ----------------------------------------------
 H=0, none                     Send BA status "missing RR"
 H=0, RR                       Process, send BA with Status=0
 H=0, IPsec                    Send BA status "missing RR"
 H=1, none                     Send BA status "missing IPsec"
 H=1, RR                       Send BA status "missing IPsec"
 H=1, IPsec                    Process, send BA with Status=131 or 132

Again the rationale is that we offer a way to the MN to correct itself. We inform the MN in the case 2 and 6, why not in the other cases?

Nicolas