Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:52:42 -0500

Hi James:

I am not sure why CARD needs to expose "internal" topology. But, to emphasize it, we can add a guideline that

(iii) CARD SHOULD/MUST not export any information between domains other than AR addresses, Link layer IDs and capabilities.  

(The above information is already exposed to third parties, i.e., MNs connecting to networks. So, it is not secret anymore.)

Are you suggesting use of Radius to establish SAs (possible) or for performing CARD (not sure)?

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: ext James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:22 PM
To: Chaskar Hemant (NRC/Boston); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

> Hemant --> I think we can start protocol design under the assumptions that (i)
old and new ARs can establish SA between them, (ii) they are willing to
participate in CARD protocol. Then, there may not be any need for intra-domain /
inter-domain classification.

Alternatively, an intermediary that would be more acceptable, such as a Radius
server, could be used. My initial point is that the two providers don't want to
expose their internal topology, even if they have an SA allowing inter-provider
handover.

            jak

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:47:15 -0800

With my service provider hat on, I'm saying that I don't think our operations
guys will approve using the IP address from another service provider's internal
topology in the fashion that you and Eunsoo are advocating. Regardless of
whether or not there is a Radius connection. if the MN sends it, our RAs will
simply be configured to reject it. Therefore, I think we should now try to
concentrate on the intra-provider case now, and deal with the interprovider case
later.

Other service providers, want to comment?

             jak

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

> (iii) CARD SHOULD/MUST not export any information between domains other than
AR addresses, Link layer IDs and capabilities.
>
> (The above information is already exposed to third parties, i.e., MNs
connecting to networks. So, it is not secret anymore.)

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:47:15 -0800

jak

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:55:28 -0800

Please let me repeat once.
The CARD protocol does NOT disclose the INTERNAL topology of the network
that the MNs cannot figure out.
Also it is not necessary for mobility management. It discloses only the AR's
IP addresses, AP's MAC addresses and such things. Disclosing capabilities
(attributes) can be limited by policies.

So I am wondering what's the concern of the providers in exchanging the
information that is anyway given away to the MNs.
I am not sure that trusting another provider with any kind of cooperation
relationship (such as roaming agreement) is more risky than trusting the
MNs.
Anyway this is about network provider's policies or business frameworks. I
am not so sure we should spend lots of time on clarifying the providers'
policies. Of course, if providers come out and provider their opinions, it
is more than welcome.

While we work on security measures for CARD, I think, we will know what's
the requirements for inter-provider operation of CARD. I don't agree if you
suggest we forget about inter-provider operation in designing the CARD
protocol and create something only for intra-provider operation and then
start looking into the inter-provider operation. For it might lead to a
protocol that is not suitable at all for inter-provider operation in the
beginning. I think we should keep in mind all the way that it is most
preferable to use the same protocol for inter-provider operation as well as
intra-provider operation. I agree to looking into intra-provider design
first only with the intention to extend the same protocol for the
inter-provider operation immediately rather than trying to create totally
different two sets of protocols.
With that in mind, we can start with a base discovery mechanism and look
into the security measures for it. We may find that the security measures
are very different in two cases, that is, inter-provider operation and
intra-provider operation, or they are almost the same. Then we will be able
to say what is the (technically) feasible approach for CARD over
inter-provider roaming.

So the most important thing for our progress is picking (a) base discovery
mechanism(s) that we want to look into and design security measures on.

How do we want to go about this? We start looking into the two individual
proposals or any new or merged proposals from the design team? What's the
status of the design team about it?

Regards,

Eunsoo

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

> > I am not sure why CARD needs to expose "internal" topology. But, to
emphasize
> it, we can add a guideline that
> >
> > Are you suggesting use of Radius to establish SAs (possible) or for
performing
> CARD (not sure)?
> > > Hemant --> I think we can start protocol design under the assumptions
that
> (i)
> > participate in CARD protocol. Then, there may not be any need for
intra-domain
> /
> > server, could be used. My initial point is that the two providers don't
want
> to

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:55:28 -0800

Regards,

Eunsoo

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

emphasize
performing
that
intra-domain
want

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:28:04 -0800

Eunsoo,

The design team is still active and tasked with completing the proposal that
they started last fall.

Therefore, I think we should terminate the circular discussion we seem to be
having on this list and let them get on with their job.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CARD between Routers - will CT do?

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:28:04 -0800

Eunsoo,

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:30:45 -0800

> having on this list and let them get on with their job.
James,

I agree with you. We need the proposal from the design team for further
discussion, at least, about security measures.
Regards,

Eunsoo

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:30:45 -0800

James,

Eunsoo