Subject: RE: Revising the Spec (was :Re: [mobile-ip] FMIPv6: Sending FBU from the new link)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:55:05 -0600

Jim,
 
If we were to revise the work that has had consensus every time because someone thinks that there is a better way
to do, we would never be done with the protocol at all. We would simply have to wait for 6 mos or a year and somebody
else would have a bright new idea.
If there are major flaws that essentially invaidate the previous work, then obviously there is a good reason to revisit and
think through. But in the absence of that, I am skeptical of such an approach.
 
-Basavaraj

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Mohamed Khalil [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 11 March, 2003 10:23 PM
To: 'James Kempf'
Cc: [email-masked]; Rajeev Koodli
Subject: RE: Revising the Spec (was :Re: [mobile-ip] FMIPv6: Sending FBU from the new link)

Hi Jim, 

I don't agree with you that we should rethink the whole approach because there are some issues need to be resolved yet. I believe that the current approach has a lot of good design thoughts which will be included, eventually, in any rethinking process. But, I agree that we need to enhance the current approach if there are good ideas as a feedback from others. I think that is the main purpose of this mailing list.

-Mohamed 

-----Original Message----- 
From: James Kempf [ mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:47 PM 
To: Rajeev Koodli 
Cc: [email-masked] 
Subject: Revising the Spec (was :Re: [mobile-ip] FMIPv6: Sending FBU from the new link) 

> I would like to emphasize an important point here. When we propose a 
> change, it is not meant to overhaul a design resulting from many 
> months of discusssion and effort. It is virtually impossible to make 
> forward progress that way. I request all interested folks to please 
> keep this mind when you contribute. We ought to recognize that the 
> current version is a reflection of what WG folks (roughly) think, and 
> build  on top of that. 
> 

Sorry, I disagree with this. 

The current design is kind of like an archeological site. One can see the layers of old decisions: design team, previous editors, etc. I think we need to rethink the approach based on new information (for example, Pete's draft on 802.11, Pekka's and my draft on architecture, etc.) which unifies the design around a few common agreed upon principles.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:15:38 -0800

Raj,

The issue is trying to provide a security solution that covers the threats, is
fast and integrates well with existing mechanisms (IPsec). I think there are
possibilities there by sending a message to the router on the current link. This
could use the SEND protocol (draft-ietf-send-ipsec-00.txt) but the messaging
would have to be ICMP because the IPsec transform accepts ICMP. This would
require changing the FBU to an ICMP message to the current router, but the new
message could contain some kind of authorization token from the MN that would go
to the old router via the HI/HAck to authorize the change.

Other proposals I've heard are to fall back to the old MIPv4 approach of having
an authenticator on the FBU message, but I believe that is not such a good idea
because it doesn't address the threat of a cycle denial of service attack, and
it doesn't address the threat of passing random traffic through the new router's
ingress filter. Can we agree that these threats are viable and need to be
addressed?

Some people have said 'well, we can loosen the new router's ingress filter a
little' but I have a hard time seeing the security ADs accept that. Nobody has
yet proposed how to deal with the cycle denial of service attack. Do you have a
suggestion about how to address these threats and maintain the current
signaling?

So I am not making this proposal just because I want to change things, or to
make trouble for you or the working group. I am making the proposal because I
don't see anybody offering a solution that covers the problems.

I should probably have written the proposal it up into a draft so it would be
clearer.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:55 PM
Subject: RE: Revising the Spec (was :Re: [mobile-ip] FMIPv6: Sending FBU from
the new link)

Jim,

If we were to revise the work that has had consensus every time because someone
thinks that there is a better way
to do, we would never be done with the protocol at all. We would simply have to
wait for 6 mos or a year and somebody
else would have a bright new idea.
If there are major flaws that essentially invaidate the previous work, then
obviously there is a good reason to revisit and
think through. But in the absence of that, I am skeptical of such an approach.

-Basavaraj

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Mohamed Khalil [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 11 March, 2003 10:23 PM
To: 'James Kempf'
Cc: [email-masked]; Rajeev Koodli
Subject: RE: Revising the Spec (was :Re: [mobile-ip] FMIPv6: Sending FBU from
the new link)

Hi Jim,

I don't agree with you that we should rethink the whole approach because there
are some issues need to be resolved yet. I believe that the current approach has
a lot of good design thoughts which will be included, eventually, in any
rethinking process. But, I agree that we need to enhance the current approach if
there are good ideas as a feedback from others. I think that is the main purpose
of this mailing list.

-Mohamed

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [ mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:47 PM
To: Rajeev Koodli
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Revising the Spec (was :Re: [mobile-ip] FMIPv6: Sending FBU from the
new link)

The current design is kind of like an archeological site. One can see the layers
of old decisions: design team, previous editors, etc. I think we need to rethink
the approach based on new information (for example, Pete's draft on 802.11,
Pekka's and my draft on architecture, etc.) which unifies the design around a
few common agreed upon principles.

            jak