From ReinaldocraftsmenMullen@gendercide.org Tue Jan 01 06:15:15 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9f5W-00057d-Nx; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:15:14 -0500 Received: from p3042-ipad03obiyama.kumamoto.ocn.ne.jp ([219.162.197.42] helo=neccomputer) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9f5W-00037d-87; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:15:14 -0500 Received: from sandusky by gendercide.org with SMTP id Y93n1kMDta for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 20:14:23 -0900 From: "Dorian Fry" To: Subject: Relax and have fun with poker Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! Download our casino in 20 seconds to get $2400 richer when you join. We give out BONUSES to anyone who joins. Get to know your new casino home! http://worldbcasino.cn/ From BerthaleisureKimball@seabirds.org Tue Jan 01 08:34:39 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9hGR-00019F-8D; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 08:34:39 -0500 Received: from host20-90-static.106-82-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([82.106.90.20] helo=nome0b43ddcc19) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9hGQ-0005mP-LL; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 08:34:38 -0500 Received: from swart by seabirds.org with SMTP id n8GYztgm8u for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 14:35:50 -0100 From: "Lucille Gibbons" To: Subject: Single-hand blackjack.. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Your own privater Vegas! Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! When YOU WIN, we win! When YOU WIN, we win! http://worldbcasino.cn/ From mleclerc@warfieldhouse.net Tue Jan 01 12:01:09 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9kUG-0002YA-Vs; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:01:09 -0500 Received: from achx134.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.10.21.134]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9kUF-0007xM-77; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:01:08 -0500 Received: from [83.10.21.134] by warfieldhouse.net.s7a1.psmtp.com; Tue, 0 Jan 2008 18:00:05 +0100 Message-ID: <02a8fd44$14710000$86150a53@mleclerc> From: "Tommie Corbin" To: Subject: Hat Date: Tue, 0 Jan 2008 18:00:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Med^s are all on-sale today Save Time and Money, 100% safe http://ranmiddles.com From eaton13ludovick62@one2one.net Tue Jan 01 12:12:40 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9kfP-0000DY-GY for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:12:39 -0500 Received: from [80.254.112.200] (helo=80.254.112.200) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9kfO-00088E-PF for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:12:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000501c84c99$04e9c0a6$da9a15b2@flmlab> From: "fabien till" To: "Andre Medeiros" Subject: exclusive watches, affordable prices rolex Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:25:11 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Perfectly crafted luxury timepieces...the finest of products at the LOWEST prices!! http://origineweve.com/ From evkuwqepihlc@bollingershipyards.com Tue Jan 01 20:45:34 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9sfm-0000fl-Bv for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:45:34 -0500 Received: from [218.204.174.9] (helo=[218.204.174.9]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9sfl-0007jR-2d for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:45:34 -0500 Received: from [218.204.174.9] by mail.global.sprint.com; Wed, 1 Jan 2008 09:51:06 +0800 Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2008 09:51:06 +0800 From: "Garland Moreno" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.2) Business Reply-To: evkuwqepihlc@bollingershipyards.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <644159755.72885866355989@bollingershipyards.com> To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Space Shuttle Shop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Improve your sex. women, love more time with you a new you. http://www.ffottrub.com (or worse, a flat tire), you don't want to From skautzman@planterstand.com Tue Jan 01 21:31:59 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9tOg-0007jU-OO; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:31:58 -0500 Received: from cpe-24-208-126-29.kc.res.rr.com ([24.208.126.29] helo=Smiles.kc.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9tOf-0008MS-Je; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:31:58 -0500 Received: from [24.208.126.29] by smtp.secureserver.net; Tue, 0 Jan 2008 20:30:55 -0600 From: "Harriet Rocha" To: Subject: Printer Date: Tue, 0 Jan 2008 20:30:55 -0600 Message-ID: <01b8fd44$00000004$1d7ed018@skautzman> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Med^s are all on-sale today Save Time and Money, 100% safe http://ranmiddles.com From CrystalgrataAndrade@quackwatch.com Wed Jan 02 00:55:24 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9wZX-0006jc-UN; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:55:23 -0500 Received: from pool-71-126-34-152.pitbpa.east.verizon.net ([71.126.34.152] helo=your1sfdbkykfj.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9wZX-0002Ve-DT; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:55:23 -0500 Received: from guess by quackwatch.com with SMTP id s2RExcu08X for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:54:56 +0500 From: "Cindy Lyon" To: Subject: Come see what it means to be a VIP. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de We're serious about fun. Players from the United States and around the world! Come see what it means to be a VIP. Come see what it means to be a VIP. http://bestplayingsite.com/ From Rathjeiojd@adambentley.com Wed Jan 02 03:01:38 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9yXi-0006zx-Ls for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:01:38 -0500 Received: from host47-141-dynamic.20-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.20.141.47] helo=host196-203-dynamic.21-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9yXh-0004MW-4L for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:01:38 -0500 Received: from xp-7f9d434c5354 ([164.187.179.10] helo=xp-7f9d434c5354) by host196-203-dynamic.21-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1AppDZ-000YEE-so for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:01:20 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 09:01:09 +0100 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "Frantisek Rathje" Subject: opar}det Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Discreet, and effective - gain 3 inches in just 3 months! http://apsthesand.com/ From Dene@karenrobards.com Wed Jan 02 09:50:41 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA4vZ-0004Gz-20 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:50:41 -0500 Received: from 240.114.broadband2.iol.cz ([83.208.114.240]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA4vY-0003To-Gk for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:50:40 -0500 Received: by 10.43.68.85 with SMTP id vtgNLkrRllVxi; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:50:44 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.54.147 with SMTP id EOTrWwnezEctZO.8603940157490; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:50:42 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <933855E4.5C020F50@karenrobards.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:50:39 +0100 From: "Dene Christiansen" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: kutuapav Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 My girlfriend gagged when she put my dick in her mouth, it was simply
too long! http://www.Guisansa.com/
From tsafygsopbkc@bonset.com Wed Jan 02 10:29:09 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA5Wm-0005oV-AW; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:29:09 -0500 Received: from p57a66f90.dip.t-dialin.net ([87.166.111.144]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA5Wl-0004e7-EC; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:29:08 -0500 Received: from [87.166.111.144] by BONSET.COM.S7B1.PSMTP.com; Wed, 1 Jan 2008 16:29:06 +0100 From: "James Smiley" To: Subject: Larger and Larger Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2008 16:29:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01c84c93$6d6fb500$906fa657@tsafygsopbkc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 VPXL penis enlargement pills http://rotuebu.com From keita@mypatientsonline.net Wed Jan 02 10:29:18 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA5Ww-0005zV-QJ; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:29:18 -0500 Received: from [199.227.42.94] (helo=[199.227.42.94]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA5Wv-0004e2-Le; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:29:18 -0500 Received: from [199.227.42.94] by ns2.medtronic.com; Wed, 1 Jan 2008 08:28:14 -0700 From: "Robyn Bland" To: Subject: Snail Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2008 08:28:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Aca6QV2D5K057J29GFQUMK28PAXWQF== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <01c84c50$404de300$5e2ae3c7@keita> X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Med^s are all on-sale today Save Time and Money, 100% safe http://ranmiddles.com From groupwo@nattergalen.dk Wed Jan 02 16:30:32 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JABAW-0003WF-4p for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:30:32 -0500 Received: from pool-71-187-30-122.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net ([71.187.30.122] helo=nattergalen.dk) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JABAT-0005AA-Rg for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:30:30 -0500 Message-ID: Reply-To: "FWilliam MBillings" From: "FWilliam MBillings" Subject: helper spare To: Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:30:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db wouldn't you like gigantic cock http://www.Erisgoners.com Elbert From ArnoldclankFernandez@outsidein.org Thu Jan 03 02:59:17 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAKyy-0005r5-E2; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:59:16 -0500 Received: from 84.94.44.112.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.44.112] helo=dudu) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAKyx-000054-M2; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:59:16 -0500 Received: from relaxation by outsidein.org with SMTP id rWkasGI6zU for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:54:52 -0200 From: "Ted Kim" To: , Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAO56-0008Vt-Rh; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:17:48 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAO55-0008Vm-Q1 for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:17:47 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAO55-0004Tp-1X for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:17:47 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Jan 2008 11:17:45 -0000 Received: from proxy2-nsn.nsn-inter.net (EHLO [217.115.75.230]) [217.115.75.230] by mail.gmx.net (mp043) with SMTP; 03 Jan 2008 12:17:45 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/h4YkczFbhMSxEruZxhC0YHmVE8Bs3M/9Vg2YKCb PCvF/uYFaOtlC9 Message-ID: <477CC459.1040009@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:17:45 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Subject: [MEXT] [Fwd: [Dime] 2nd WGLC: Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction] X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Dime] 2nd WGLC: Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:04:59 +0100 From: Hannes Tschofenig To: dime@ietf.org Hi all, this message marks the issuance of the second working group last call (WGLC) on DIME's Internet Draft entitled "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction" (draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-07.txt). You may view this document at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-07 In August 2007 we initiated the 1st WGLC on draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-05.txt, see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg01940.html Based on the feedback from the group version 6 and version 7 of the draft have seen some changes: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-06.txt http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-07.txt We would therefore like to initiate a short 2nd WGLC to ensure that all comments have been properly captured. Please post comments and questions to the DIME mailing list no later than 12th Jan 2008. Ciao Hannes & Dave _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From theaud@garys-genealogy.com Thu Jan 03 15:39:39 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAWqp-0006Cf-Jl; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:39:39 -0500 Received: from [85.98.80.183] (helo=dsl85-98-20663.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAWqo-0003kQ-DP; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:39:39 -0500 Received: from [85.98.80.183] by mx.garys-genealogy.com; Thu, 2 Jan 2008 22:38:32 +0200 Message-ID: <01c84d90$33d0a400$b7506255@theaud> From: "Jerrod Mcwilliams" To: Subject: Drink Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2008 22:38:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 We have Many types of meds We stock Hard to Find ones http://12saless.com From bbax@kraditorhaber.com Thu Jan 03 16:28:02 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAXbe-0002pI-93; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:28:02 -0500 Received: from [189.24.158.71] (helo=18924158071.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAXbb-0004ne-Ov; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:28:01 -0500 Received: from [189.24.158.71] by verizon.kraditorhaber.com; Thu, 2 Jan 2008 18:26:55 -0300 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2008 18:26:55 -0300 From: "Marcelo Carrier" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.0) Personal Reply-To: bbax@kraditorhaber.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <703231816.00941570431479@kraditorhaber.com> To: nat-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Chess Board MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 We have Many types of meds We stock Hard to Find ones http://ranmiddles.com From lpierce@gdicom.net Thu Jan 03 17:36:14 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAYfe-0005Ae-Ge; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:36:14 -0500 Received: from doa50.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.24.108.50] helo=adam) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAYfc-0006Qk-7l; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:36:14 -0500 Received: from [83.24.108.50] by in-mx.propagation.net; Thu, 2 Jan 2008 23:35:06 +0100 From: "Homer Stevenson" To: Subject: Sun Tapestry Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2008 23:35:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01c84d98$1b314280$326c1853@lpierce> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C84D98.1B314280" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C84D98.1B314280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We ship and you save http://lynnewalkowiaktg.googlepages.com   neurobiology, cognitive   a book, you want  how patterns are   ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C84D98.1B314280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We ship and you save
 
http://lynnewalkowiaktg.googlepages.com
=A0
=A0
=A0
neurobiology, cognitive
=A0
a book, you want
=A0
how patterns are
=A0
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C84D98.1B314280-- From ChrisalvinRussell@benningtonbanner.com Thu Jan 03 18:25:27 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAZRG-0005Q6-Vv; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:25:27 -0500 Received: from [200.121.226.197] (helo=wave825b68f63e) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAZRG-0007NB-J7; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:25:26 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host77944724.benningtonbanner.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id moxAEleo90.594819.ZfD.mPT.5098679335361 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:25:05 -0100 Message-ID: <11a2101c84e5f$eef06250$2301a8c0@wave825b68f63e> From: "Antonio Gonzales" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_11A1D_01C84E5F.EEF06250-- From DexterkeynesTran@betawave.us Thu Jan 03 21:39:45 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAcTI-0002V1-Ml; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:39:44 -0500 Received: from 213.37.101.28.dyn.user.ono.com ([213.37.101.28] helo=comunida16049d.madrid.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAcTI-0002pp-7n; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:39:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host96076052.betawave.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id gICkbapq37.663398.m0c.ngj.1645333512140 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 03:50:16 -0100 Message-ID: <127b1801c84e7c$959b6700$2201a8c0@COMUNIDA16049D> From: "Randal Barton" To: Subject: Your family Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 03:50:16 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_127B14_01C84E7C.959B6700" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_127B14_01C84E7C.959B6700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_127B14_01C84E7C.959B6700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_127B14_01C84E7C.959B6700-- From Danlagdyrnp@animekandi.org Thu Jan 03 22:42:20 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAdRs-0000KG-IB for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:42:20 -0500 Received: from [24.139.210.173] (helo=[24.139.210.173]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAdRp-00044q-N5 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:42:18 -0500 Received: from your-rvlnhr6v8d by animekandi.org with ASMTP id BDD2B000 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:42:39 -0400 Received: from your-rvlnhr6v8d ([161.155.15.78]) by animekandi.org with ESMTP id DCBF0B2EDEF6 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:42:39 -0400 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:42:19 -0400 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "ghasem Danlag" Subject: sanovana Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Gains to your dick is guaranteed - you have nothing to lose, only a lot to gain! http://Upsizeseverytin.com/ From JonahbeowulfHendrix@variety.com Fri Jan 04 01:51:21 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAgOm-0006s1-ES; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:51:20 -0500 Received: from c-71-207-155-253.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([71.207.155.253] helo=paco79b71faba2.hsd1.va.comcast.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAgOm-0007cq-3k; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:51:20 -0500 Received: from laplacian by variety.com with SMTP id pqFINv6rJg for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:49:09 -0100 From: "Frances Sargent" To: Subject: Start seeing dollars pouring in. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Your own privater Vegas! Come see what it means to be a VIP. Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! Get $2400 you download our casino. http://superrichgame.net/ From LindasniffleOconnell@andreadoria.org Fri Jan 04 02:12:34 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAgjK-0005za-2z; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:12:34 -0500 Received: from [190.80.160.241] (helo=pc2a0169816132) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAgjJ-0007vl-Fb; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:12:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host40968750.andreadoria.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id aYmnnssX06.099143.NOi.lPr.8063248928449 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 03:12:00 +0400 Message-ID: <188c301c84ea1$2b60e250$0200000a@pc2a0169816132> From: "Carol Minor" To: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_188BF_01C84EA1.2B60E250-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 04 03:04:12 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAhWx-0002E8-VZ; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:03:51 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAhWw-0002Dj-It for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:03:50 -0500 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAhWw-0001NP-5l for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:03:50 -0500 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x19so2584915pyg.24 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:03:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=C1otML41VhTdngeCXT4FiSA5KS9PYUuBCr9R4CB6vhw=; b=hvL+nR9MACKxIfd/wkSrrpP7TZ8X1xCNEGtldW3MrEgtvAXKyjoYv0qdE6KP1UwXABXmLbjTTgyR7BZNSXYijgalf4IdOXXT4bOuDyaZIpjsHbSrxzwgNLL/AWUCdWLfjZz5lBRGUWC7m9RB9HVGAW5H8gib09bcfV0f795yg9A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=v9oEeCg34shXKzsey3BtsSBriFzMcHROiYUrdQqVpvR7j4D0ESlCCp3SixBMLgwVtzBq9UEjmNZIPq6h76dcX/lqrMHwiZo82J7q2wPjug9xTkhUq4FbSswWAXRdB6T4jjVqjaA3zQKgJ767axHug1NRqOuQi5bJ7KWSTG022iM= Received: by 10.142.226.2 with SMTP id y2mr4958726wfg.137.1199433828795; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.165.1 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:03:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:03:48 +0200 From: "George Tsirtsis" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" Subject: Re: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting 7,8 feb 2007 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Marcelo et.al., Are you planning to publish the agenda for the interim meeting in advance? It might help people decide whether to come or not. Thanks George On Dec 18, 2007 12:20 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Hi, > > We are finally organizing the MEXT interim meeting. > > The information is included below. > > MEXT interim meeting > > DATE: > 7,8 feb 2007 > > Location: > University Carlos III de Madrid > Escuela Politecnica Superior > Av. Universidad 30 > 28911 - Leganes > Madrid, SPAIN > > Goal of the meeting: > The focus of the meeting would be the nemo ro work and other > considerations for nemo global deployment. > > We will provide more information about the location accomodation and > agenda shortly > > Thanks, Julien and marcelo > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From lucas@zecki.com Fri Jan 04 05:06:27 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAjRb-0001R2-Sv; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:06:27 -0500 Received: from www.flab.fr ([62.161.209.225]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAjRa-0003Im-3Y; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:06:27 -0500 Received: from [62.161.209.225] by mail1.quadrahosting.com.au; Fri, 3 Jan 2008 11:05:20 +0100 From: "Jame Knowles" To: Subject: Sword Airport Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2008 11:05:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01c84df8$8776d800$e1d1a13e@lucas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4963.1700 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Hey You I tried to attach a picture to this email Im not sure if I did it correctly If you dont see it please Email me at Angie@glorywaychurchx.info and I will retry right away Maybe we can Chat sometime :) From ElisamicrojouleDumas@apache.org Fri Jan 04 06:05:11 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAkMQ-0006Yy-OA; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:05:11 -0500 Received: from host81-157-38-110.range81-157.btcentralplus.com ([81.157.38.110] helo=home7i9pfrfq32.home) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAkMQ-0006Jz-3y; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:05:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host21787588.apache.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 18gmQA6O23.834761.xy0.x8G.2128568677192 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:04:39 +0000 Message-ID: <7702201c84ec1$a736a4d0$4101a8c0@home7i9pfrfq32> From: "Marta Story" To: Subject: Your order Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:04:39 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_7701E_01C84EC1.A736A4D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_7701E_01C84EC1.A736A4D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_7701E_01C84EC1.A736A4D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_7701E_01C84EC1.A736A4D0-- From SuzettepentagonalMyrick@containershipping.nl Fri Jan 04 09:02:08 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAn7g-0005rL-FB; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:02:08 -0500 Received: from c-24-125-248-201.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([24.125.248.201] helo=your1rnfg39627.belkin) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAn7g-0005tQ-3i; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:02:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host56473741.containershipping.nl (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id dbv0zHNg27.818961.zgn.2O7.5833982261326 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:01:43 +0600 Message-ID: <699201c84eda$62b2a110$0202a8c0@your1rnfg39627> From: "Ilene Huddleston" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_698E_01C84EDA.62B2A110-- From Mans.Guillroy@intentaporno.com Fri Jan 04 10:36:32 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAob2-0002vl-Sn for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:36:32 -0500 Received: from [88.243.48.132] (helo=[88.243.48.132]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAob2-0001lM-6e for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:36:32 -0500 Received: from 1-10xhhcct7a9tt ([143.136.176.51]:17521 "EHLO 1-10xhhcct7a9tt" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [88.243.48.132] with ESMTP id S22OLBBLSOYUHIJA (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:36:57 +0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:36:43 +0200 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "Mans Guillroy" Subject: lyksutus Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 The 100% proven and safe herbal penis enlargement solution! http://Asseusagne.com/ From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 04 11:36:07 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApWZ-0005jU-2f; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:35:59 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApWX-0005jO-Ht for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:35:57 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApWW-0002zx-QH for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:35:57 -0500 Received: from [200.40.4.188] (unknown [200.40.4.188])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139E52B9594;Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:35:51 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6E8282BE-7BD6-4E04-9412-4EC8A1CC2DC8@it.uc3m.es> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting 7,8 feb 2007 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:29:31 +0100 To: George Tsirtsis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-21.6617 TC:02 TRN:26 TV:5.0.1023(15648.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Cc: mext@ietf.org, Julien Laganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, i would expect that for the mid jan we will be able to publish a =20 draft agenda Regards, marcelo El 04/01/2008, a las 9:03, George Tsirtsis escribi=F3: > Marcelo et.al., > > Are you planning to publish the agenda for the interim meeting in > advance? It might help people decide whether to come or not. > > Thanks > George > > On Dec 18, 2007 12:20 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun =20 > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We are finally organizing the MEXT interim meeting. >> >> The information is included below. >> >> MEXT interim meeting >> >> DATE: >> 7,8 feb 2007 >> >> Location: >> University Carlos III de Madrid >> Escuela Politecnica Superior >> Av. Universidad 30 >> 28911 - Leganes >> Madrid, SPAIN >> >> Goal of the meeting: >> The focus of the meeting would be the nemo ro work and other >> considerations for nemo global deployment. >> >> We will provide more information about the location accomodation and >> agenda shortly >> >> Thanks, Julien and marcelo >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From DeancosmicStephens@dunhamcellars.com Fri Jan 04 11:52:55 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApmx-0002Gs-5z; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:52:55 -0500 Received: from [139.147.236.163] (helo=aec31701.lafayette.edu) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApmw-0003MO-Q4; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:52:54 -0500 Received: from thickish by dunhamcellars.com with SMTP id Y45ebbMtM3 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:52:35 +0500 From: "Derek Snyder" To: Subject: Free money free fun. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Huge progressive jackpots, slots, multi-hand, and single-hand blackjack. We pay you to play. We have it all! Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! http://luxsupergambling.net/ From FranklinsantiagoAlvarez@wikipedia.org Fri Jan 04 12:05:59 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApza-0001YG-GS; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:05:58 -0500 Received: from p57b5d9c8.dip.t-dialin.net ([87.181.217.200] helo=henkel9f6fcbab.speedportw700v) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApzZ-0003cK-Uo; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:05:58 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host76149418.wikipedia.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id pQFZxASI96.270085.8Ko.6vN.7930831617181 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:04:44 -0100 Message-ID: <1dcae01c84ef3$ff0fe3b0$6402a8c0@henkel9f6fcbab> From: "Gabriel Montgomery" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_1DCAA_01C84EF3.FF0FE3B0-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 04 12:59:47 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAqpY-0000L8-Kr; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:59:40 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAqpX-0000Kw-Bo for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:59:39 -0500 Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.32.69]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAqpW-0004qC-VA for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:59:39 -0500 Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m04HxIMu001983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m04HxITW014258; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m04HxI0Q014235; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.55.69]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:59:16 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting 7,8 feb 2007 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 09:59:16 -0800 Message-ID: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537BE71@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting 7,8 feb 2007 Thread-Index: AchOqHOclEApA5w2Q0+CVyUe1o/sRAAUr6tg References: From: "Davis, Terry L" To: "George Tsirtsis" , "marcelo bagnulo braun" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2008 17:59:16.0850 (UTC) FILETIME=[85CB2520:01C84EFB] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 Cc: mext@ietf.org, Julien Laganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Marcelo I will be making flight and hotel reservations later today for the interim meeting. Looking forward to the meeting. Take care Terry L Davis, P.E Boeing Technical Fellow Aircraft Network and Security Architecture & Strategy Engineering Core - Avionics Boeing Commercial Airplanes Phone: 206-280-3716 Email: Terry.L.Davis@Boeing.com> -----Original Message----- > From: George Tsirtsis [mailto:tsirtsis@googlemail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 12:04 AM > To: marcelo bagnulo braun > Cc: Julien Laganier; mext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting 7,8 feb 2007 >=20 > Marcelo et.al., >=20 > Are you planning to publish the agenda for the interim meeting in > advance? It might help people decide whether to come or not. >=20 > Thanks > George >=20 > On Dec 18, 2007 12:20 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We are finally organizing the MEXT interim meeting. > > > > The information is included below. > > > > MEXT interim meeting > > > > DATE: > > 7,8 feb 2007 > > > > Location: > > University Carlos III de Madrid > > Escuela Politecnica Superior > > Av. Universidad 30 > > 28911 - Leganes > > Madrid, SPAIN > > > > Goal of the meeting: > > The focus of the meeting would be the nemo ro work and other > > considerations for nemo global deployment. > > > > We will provide more information about the location accomodation and > > agenda shortly > > > > Thanks, Julien and marcelo > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From ofcemike@irishstory.com Fri Jan 04 13:15:47 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAr59-0000qW-Bo; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:15:47 -0500 Received: from [88.251.171.136] (helo=[88.251.171.136]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAr58-0005ES-BH; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:15:47 -0500 Received: from [88.251.171.136] by mx00.1and1.co.uk; Fri, 3 Jan 2008 20:14:41 +0200 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2008 20:14:41 +0200 From: "Russell Dejesus" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00) Educational Reply-To: ofcemike@irishstory.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <690848719.03300632361259@irishstory.com> To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org Subject: Bowl MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 We have Many types of med s We stock Hard to Find ones http://uupizapzohaa.googlepages.com From DeannagrotonBonilla@prwatch.org Fri Jan 04 20:55:14 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAyFl-0003LH-RG; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:55:13 -0500 Received: from [78.174.45.183] (helo=samsun) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAyFl-0001Vi-2m; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:55:13 -0500 Message-ID: <7a3201c837ab$378c3550$0201a8c0@samsun> From: "Patsy Stroud" To: , =20
Your credit history = does not=20 matter to us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 wish IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way you like or need Extra money to = give your=20 company a boost or want A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, here = is the=20 deal we can offer you TONIGHT (hurry, this tender will expire THIS=20 EVENING):
=20
 
$37,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when our best = deal is=20 gone, it is gone. Simply fill in this elementary form... =
=20
 
Do not worry about = approval, your=20 your credit report will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://worlducasino.net.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_7A2E_01C837AB.378C3550-- From fbjb@borusanotomotiv.com Sat Jan 05 03:12:31 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JB48t-0000Mn-By; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:12:31 -0500 Received: from cable201-233-74-137.epm.net.co ([201.233.74.137] helo=suzy.une.net.co) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JB48q-0007ez-Uf; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:12:29 -0500 Received: from [201.233.74.137] by mail.borusanotomotiv.com; Sat, 4 Jan 2008 03:12:28 -0500 From: "Alyssa Coleman" To: Subject: Re: Alyssa Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2008 03:12:28 -0500 Message-ID: <01c84e7f$a2d8f600$894ae9c9@fbjb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4115 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.3 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 We have Many types of med s We stock Hard to Find ones http://daydinpyxans.googlepages.com From OlencoorsGood@baltimoresun.com Sat Jan 05 11:03:14 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBBUP-0006aU-Ki; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:03:13 -0500 Received: from [88.244.173.67] (helo=mert908ce4b091) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBBUO-0007Eu-9t; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:03:13 -0500 Message-ID: <888601c84fb4$76895b40$2101a8c0@mert908ce4b091> From: "Sal Workman" To: Subject: Great Solution for seasonal merchants Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:02:38 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_8882_01C84FB4.76895B40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_8882_01C84FB4.76895B40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your your credit report does not matter to us! If you have your own business and require IMMEDIATE ready money to spend = ANY way you like or want Extra money to give the company a boost or want = A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, here is our deal we can offer = you TODAY (hurry, this lot will expire THIS NIGHT): $47,000+ loan Hurry, when the deal is gone, it is gone. Simply finish this simplified = form... Do not worry about approval, your credit history will not disqualify you! http://worldvcasino.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_8882_01C84FB4.76895B40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
Your credit history = doesn't=20 matter to us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 wish IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way you like or want Extra money to = give the=20 company a boost or want A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, here = is=20 best deal we can offer you TONIGHT (hurry, this deal will expire=20 TONIGHT):
=20
 
$29,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when our best = deal is=20 gone, it is gone. Simply complete this user-friendly form... =
=20 =20
 
Do not worry about = approval, your=20 credit score will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://worldvcasino.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_8882_01C84FB4.76895B40-- From Papoaevq@atg.kiev.ua Sat Jan 05 12:51:17 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBDAz-0007TF-6L for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:51:17 -0500 Received: from [200.164.138.4] (helo=[200.149.80.182]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBDAv-0000wE-V4 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:51:16 -0500 Received: from a-5e71c73adda84 by atg.kiev.ua with ASMTP id D0F06612 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:51:45 -0300 Received: from a-5e71c73adda84 ([131.139.191.48]) by atg.kiev.ua with ESMTP id 6D4134A3516D for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:51:45 -0300 Message-ID: <68342164.9F06B0EC@atg.kiev.ua> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 14:51:07 -0300 From: "morshad Papo" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: 2901-347 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010105080107080602010704" X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------010105080107080602010704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved by doctors, discussed on TV and magazines - VPXL works for penis enlargement! http://www.Unnestinges.com/ --------------010105080107080602010704 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved by doctors, discussed on TV and magazines - VPXL works for
penis enlargement! http://www.Unnestinges.com/
--------------010105080107080602010704-- From DiannaajarAckerman@foodservicedirect.com Sat Jan 05 14:53:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBF4r-0000Em-Rm; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:53:05 -0500 Received: from [88.240.171.91] (helo=can82ba65b5b3d) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBF4r-0003jb-4e; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:53:05 -0500 Message-ID: <5775001c84fd4$94fbcc50$2101a8c0@can82ba65b5b3d> From: "Nichole Penn" To: Cc: , =20
Your credit does not = matter to=20 us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 want IMMEDIATE ready money to spend ANY way you like or require Extra = money to=20 give your company a boost or want A low interest loan - NO STRINGS = ATTACHED,=20 here is the deal we can offer you THIS NIGHT (hurry, this deal will = expire THIS=20 EVENING):
=20
 
$34,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when the deal = is gone, it=20 is gone. Simply finish this one-minute form...
=20
 
Don't worry about = approval, your=20 your credit report will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://worldvcasino.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_5774C_01C84FD4.94FBCC50-- From BettiealtruistHaskins@anchortext-backlinks.com Sat Jan 05 15:55:26 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBG3C-0006LU-Aj; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:55:26 -0500 Received: from dslb-088-067-040-221.pools.arcor-ip.net ([88.67.40.221] helo=koulalis) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBG3B-0005gI-FZ; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:55:26 -0500 Message-ID: <0ef401c84fdb$de307950$2101a8c0@koulalis> From: "Aida Burger" To: Subject: Some of the most competitive rates available Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 21:44:49 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0EF0_01C84FDB.DE307950" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0EF0_01C84FDB.DE307950 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your credit does not matter to us! If you have your own business and require IMMEDIATE ready money to spend = ANY way you like or wish Extra money to give your business a boost or = need A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, here is the deal we can = offer you TODAY (hurry, this tender will expire THIS EVENING): $22,000+ loan Hurry, when our best deal is gone, it is gone. Simply complete this = short form... Don't worry about approval, your credit history will not disqualify you! http://worldvcasino.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_0EF0_01C84FDB.DE307950 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
Your your credit = report does not=20 matter to us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 wish IMMEDIATE ready money to spend ANY way you like or need Extra money = to=20 give your company a boost or want A low interest loan - NO STRINGS = ATTACHED,=20 here is our deal we can offer you TODAY (hurry, this lot will expire = THIS=20 NIGHT):
=20
 
$63,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when our best = deal is=20 gone, it is gone. Simply finish this quick form...
=
 
Don't worry about = approval, your=20 credit will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://worldvcasino.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_0EF0_01C84FDB.DE307950-- From NicolashoseChristensen@autoblog.com Sat Jan 05 23:16:25 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBMvx-0007SL-Dn; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:16:25 -0500 Received: from pool-72-93-82-97.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([72.93.82.97] helo=djcl0n51.home) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBMvx-0005N0-4h; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:16:25 -0500 Received: from frisky by autoblog.com with SMTP id kEkzyRCxWY for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:11:24 +0500 From: "Josh Waters" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBRXy-0005h8-Ou; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:11:58 -0500 Received: from [81.10.7.250] (helo=host-81.10.7.250.tedata.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBRXv-0001J9-86; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:11:58 -0500 Received: from [81.10.7.250] by mail.borntosend.com; , 5 Jan 2008 11:11:55 +0200 From: "Rodney Shultz" To: Subject: Re: Rodney Date: , 5 Jan 2008 11:11:55 +0200 Message-ID: <01c84f8b$c7ba8f80$fa070a51@wwwtke> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2905 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Have much sex your sex. girl, enjoy more time with you a better you. http://www.Youskabes.com it would be useful your time is too important Gervasio said. shares were purchased Singleton isn't as simple as it 5-year-old son From MarinaaccordantKilgore@foxnews.com Sun Jan 06 08:17:01 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBVN6-0005TX-Qp; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:17:00 -0500 Received: from adsl-84-226-158-29.adslplus.ch ([84.226.158.29] helo=do1) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBVN6-0002ME-1g; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:17:00 -0500 Received: from sterno by foxnews.com with SMTP id jCg3ZW6ReX for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:16:28 -0100 From: "Alisha Biggs" To: Subject: When YOU WIN, we win! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de We have it all! Our casino is for you and everyone else who likes to win! We know how to treat our players - how about a $2400 welcome bonmus when you join? If you're in the US or anywhere else, join your new casino paradise. http://toprevolutiongame.com/ From WilliaminfamousJackson@nyfcc.com Sun Jan 06 12:29:18 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBZJF-00042f-T6; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:29:17 -0500 Received: from 88.162.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es ([87.217.162.88] helo=equipoxp) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBZJF-00084g-DC; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:29:17 -0500 Received: from foul by nyfcc.com with SMTP id moalWQlQBN for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:28:54 -0100 From: "Robert Moore" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBbHD-0007OV-33; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:35:19 -0500 Received: from pool-72-88-231-172.nwrknj.east.verizon.net ([72.88.231.172] helo=yourc44d19af4e.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBbHC-00045V-9c; Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:35:18 -0500 Received: from customary by fujicolor.de with SMTP id EoWvj4gR3a for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2008 14:33:31 +0500 From: "Lonnie Moreno" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBlHb-00054k-LK; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:16:23 -0500 Received: from p1042-adslbkksp7.c.csloxinfo.net ([58.136.68.26] helo=kwang14) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBlHZ-0007Z3-45; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:16:23 -0500 Received: from conestoga by openoffice.org with SMTP id yfOitL83HL for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:07:20 +1200 From: "Caitlin Burger" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBm4b-0007WO-Hd for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:07:01 -0500 Received: from c-67-186-153-182.hsd1.ct.comcast.net ([67.186.153.182] helo=c-67-186-153-182.hsd1.ma.comcast.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBm4b-0007SY-86 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:07:01 -0500 Received: from CKCT by brauniger.de with ASMTP id BD8BDBA3 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:12:31 -0500 Received: from CKCT ([179.134.144.180]) by brauniger.de with ESMTP id 5852C55AED54 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:12:31 -0500 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 02:12:03 -0500 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "Tere Maikovich" Subject: nikakkia Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 With the risk of surgery, just 2 capsules a day for visible gains within 1 month http://trumaniac.com/ From prtaj@boomconsultancy.com Mon Jan 07 02:33:13 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBmTw-0004xw-Hx; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:33:12 -0500 Received: from [139.141.203.96] (helo=houssampc.WWW.PLANNING.KUNIV.EDU.KW) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBmTv-0007tb-Ao; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:33:12 -0500 Received: from [139.141.203.96] by mail.boomconsultancy.com; Mon, 6 Jan 2008 10:33:11 +0300 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2008 10:33:11 +0300 From: "Ernestine Crow" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.04.7) Business Reply-To: prtaj@boomconsultancy.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <138219772.70853308450737@boomconsultancy.com> To: mpls-request@lists.ietf.org Subject: Re: Ernestine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Have much sex yours and her sex. woman, enjoy time with them enjoy you. http://www.Besoomesel.com A consequence of these the patterns that the report says. In my investigation a design paddle pattern. report says. From klbypcu@bogon.com Mon Jan 07 02:35:12 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBmVs-0000QK-Am for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:35:12 -0500 Received: from 89-139-99-137.bb.netvision.net.il ([89.139.99.137] helo=shtern-h5r3d7kl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBmVr-0007w4-1K for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:35:12 -0500 Received: from [89.139.99.137] by virtual.fireplug.net; Mon, 6 Jan 2008 09:40:45 +0200 From: "Rachelle Meredith" To: Subject: Hieroglyph Garden Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2008 09:40:45 +0200 Message-ID: <01c85048$35c48c80$89638b59@klbypcu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 We have amazing herbal for sale http://www.Invinsebels.com July 2005). They have since also want to learn the report says. had gone in between sips of a martini. and 3-year-old From AlysonconvulsionKeyes@washingtonpost.com Mon Jan 07 04:56:25 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBoiX-0005hx-A3; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:56:25 -0500 Received: from 190-82-49-38.adsl.cust.tie.cl ([190.82.49.38] helo=servidor) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBoiW-00024y-Ih; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:56:25 -0500 Received: from guiding by washingtonpost.com with SMTP id mOx58P0wna for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 06:55:18 +0400 From: "Isabella Koehler" To: Subject: After thatit's only fun and winning. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Free money free fun. Free money free fun. Get your bonus and walk the red carpet to winnings and fun. Get to know your new casino home! http://worldpcasino.cn/ From paul@ll-bowling.org Mon Jan 07 05:09:49 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBovV-0004ZP-KD; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:09:49 -0500 Received: from [89.121.77.45] (helo=[89.121.77.45]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBovU-0002Fe-8w; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:09:49 -0500 Received: from [89.121.77.45] by mail2.meriq.se; Mon, 6 Jan 2008 12:08:40 +0200 From: "Mohammad Lamb" To: Subject: Barbecue Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2008 12:08:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: Aca6QDICRW2VYETVS5JLR5JTXKB5T2== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <01c8505c$dfae1400$2d4d7959@paul> X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 We have Many types of med s We stock Hard to Find ones http://smqd.fellstrong.com From Krohn@armitage-construction.co.uk Mon Jan 07 07:23:15 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBr0d-000562-KV for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:23:15 -0500 Received: from host244-191-dynamic.16-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.16.191.244]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBr0c-0005yH-QK for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 07:23:15 -0500 Received: from checco ([174.175.68.57] helo=checco) by host244-191-dynamic.16-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1hXcAQ-000PTT-hh for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:23:47 +0100 Message-ID: <9E576B89.AB44D3B4@armitage-construction.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:23:12 +0100 From: "guangming Krohn" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: rgegtsav Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030100080101020004030103" X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab --------------030100080101020004030103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't live with a small dick, take VPXL to gain 3 inches within months! http://www.lavatrouble.com/ --------------030100080101020004030103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Don't live with a small dick, take VPXL to gain 3 inches within
months! http://www.lavatrouble.com/
--------------030100080101020004030103-- From ReneechromaticNance@hells-handmaiden.com Mon Jan 07 14:57:11 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBy5u-0003hx-KM; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:57:10 -0500 Received: from [201.240.177.99] (helo=m0g1m7) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBy5u-00058U-7w; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:57:10 -0500 Received: from parkish by hells-handmaiden.com with SMTP id kAASb5U4TN for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:56:36 +0500 From: "Kristen Zuniga" To: Subject: How about a $2400 welcome bonus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Play your favorite games and get $2400 welcome bonus. Download our casino in 20 seconds to get $2400 richer when you join. Come see what it means to be a VIP. Your own privater Vegas! http://worldpcasino.net.cn/ From BelindaponyQuick@linkedwords.com Mon Jan 07 16:03:31 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBz86-0004Pu-SV; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:03:30 -0500 Received: from pd9e805ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.232.5.172] helo=workstation) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBz84-00073m-Bm; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:03:28 -0500 Message-ID: <742701c85170$bf5784b0$0b07020a@workstation> From: "Cecilia Billings" To: , =20
Your credit score = doesn't matter=20 to us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 wish IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way you like or want Extra money to = give the=20 business a boost or wish A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, = here is=20 the deal we can offer you THIS NIGHT (hurry, this offer will expire=20 NOW):
=20
 
$46,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when best deal = is gone, it=20 is gone. Simply fill this easy form...
=20
 
Don't worry about = approval, your=20 credit history will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://worldwcasino.com.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_7423_01C85170.BF5784B0-- From BrianamarijuanaDutton@wordwebonline.com Mon Jan 07 20:37:59 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JC3Pj-0001M6-AY; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:37:59 -0500 Received: from [201.58.124.160] (helo=sniperlan6) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JC3Pi-0004r7-8h; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:37:59 -0500 Received: from stairwell by wordwebonline.com with SMTP id qNBgDcxBmY for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:37:37 +0300 From: "Susanna Benavides" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JC4vT-0003p1-LB; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:14:51 -0500 Received: from [211.237.121.168] (helo=[211.237.121.168]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JC4vS-0006xz-Ew; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:14:51 -0500 Received: from [211.237.121.168] by mail.sinnamonrecords.com; Tue, 7 Jan 2008 12:13:42 +0900 Message-ID: <01c85126$be195f00$a879edd3@jc> From: "Williams Kendall" To: Subject: Bathroom Sphere Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2008 12:13:42 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db No more worries, men! Medical professionals have endorsed the HerbalMaxx system to help men just like you achieve increased SIZE, LENGTH and WIDTH of their Manhood http://siofuuu.com From LeecovaryConnolly@engadget.com Tue Jan 08 08:59:42 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCEzV-0005xc-Ju; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:59:41 -0500 Received: from scx25-1-89-84-170-53.dsl.club-internet.fr ([89.84.170.53] helo=conceptedition) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCEzV-0004Bv-7O; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:59:41 -0500 Received: from electrophoresis by engadget.com with SMTP id NaImkD2zaw for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:59:24 -0100 From: "Beulah Daly" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCFRe-00053d-Mf; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:28:46 -0500 Received: from [201.58.150.115] (helo=sniperlan9) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCFRd-0004vn-P9; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:28:46 -0500 Message-ID: <971201c85202$c8c7f920$1600000a@SNIPERLAN9> From: "Angelina Bowles" To: Subject: Receive funds in as little as 5 days Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:28:15 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_970E_01C85202.C8C7F920" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_970E_01C85202.C8C7F920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your credit does not matter to us! If you have your own business and want IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way = you like or wish Extra money to give the company a boost or wish A low = interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, here is the deal we can offer you = TONIGHT (hurry, this lot will expire TONIGHT): $56,000+ loan Hurry, when our best deal is gone, it is gone. Simply fill in this = user-friendly form... Do not worry about approval, your credit history will not disqualify you! http://thedworld.net.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_970E_01C85202.C8C7F920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
Your credit history = does not=20 matter to us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 require IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way you like or want Extra money to = give=20 the business a boost or require A low interest loan - NO STRINGS = ATTACHED,=20 here is our best deal we can offer you TODAY (hurry, this offer will = expire=20 TONIGHT):
=20
 
$26,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when best deal = is gone, it=20 is gone. Simply finish this simple form...
=20
 
Do not worry about = approval, your=20 credit history will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://thedworld.net.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_970E_01C85202.C8C7F920-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 08 10:53:16 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCGkX-0003v0-W6; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:52:21 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCGkW-0003uo-HS for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:52:20 -0500 Received: from g4t0015.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.18]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCGkV-0006aH-Sm for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:52:20 -0500 Received: from g4t0015.houston.hp.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by receive-from-antispam-filter (Postfix) with SMTP id 41D5E8427; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2.fc.hp.com (smtp.cnd.hp.com [15.11.136.114]) by g4t0015.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A028419; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [16.116.96.52] (wrx.zko.hp.com [16.116.96.52]) by smtp2.fc.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7846924FC76; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <47839C2F.8000708@hp.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:52:15 -0500 From: Brian Haley Organization: Open Source and Linux Organization User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071023) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandru Petrescu Subject: Re: [MEXT] RE: Reliability of sending BRR by the HA? References: <475FED61.2060606@gmail.com><476B91B0.8030805@gmail.com><476BC613.8020906@gmail. com><47 6 BCCF0.1020202@gmail.com><476BEE14.2090405@gmail.com><476C2610.3000101@gmail.com> <47729C52.7080305@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47729C52.7080305@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Sorry for the late response, see inline. Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> Hi, >> >> i am trying to understand the impact of this in rfc3775 update >> >> I don't think that whether it is a good idea to use BRR from the HA is >> relevant for the discussion of RFC3775 update (it is of course >> relevant for the mext ml but not imho for this particular process of >> updating rfc3775) >> >> what imho is relavnt for the discussion of updating rfc3775 is whether >> rfc3775 is clear enough about whether HAs should send BRR or not I don't think HA's have to support sending BRRs since they can't ever delete the MN binding, it really should only be useful for a CN that implements a cache-replacement policy that purges old bindings. >> From the text of rfc3775 that Alex sent in his original posting, it >> seems that only CNs should send BRR and BE and not by the HA, so, is >> there any text in rfc3775 that can possibly create confusion about HAs >> using BRR or BEs? Does anyone has interpreted rfc3775 in the way that >> HAs should send BRR and BEs? > > I will invite other implementers express whether it's clear or not who > sends BRR and BErr. > > For my reading, there are some occurences about the possibility of HA > being a CN, for example section 10.3.1 "Primary Care-of Address > Registration" in 10.3 "Processing Bindings" in 10 "HA Operation": > > rfc3775: > [...] >> To begin processing the Binding Update, the home agent MUST perform >> the following sequence of tests: >> >> o If the node implements only correspondent node functionality, or >> has not been configured to act as a home agent,[...] > > The 'node' (the home agent) can thus implement only CN functionality. That was my understanding as well - the HA is also a CN. HP's implementations will send a Binding Error if either HA or CN - I saw no reason to special case that code to limit it to one or the other. I did not implement BRR since we don't have a cache replacement policy to delete old entries - memory is cheap :) -Brian _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 08 14:33:08 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCKBa-0007qh-0N; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:32:30 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCKBY-0007qY-AO for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:32:28 -0500 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCKBW-00078N-SQ for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:32:28 -0500 Received: from [163.117.139.225] (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5BC2D15D0;Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:32:26 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <575418CA-4A1C-495A-9361-9388F9306556@it.uc3m.es> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: marcelo bagnulo braun Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:32:24 +0100 To: mext@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-4.0344 TC:1F TRN:6 TV:5.0.1023(15656.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Cc: Julien Laganier Subject: [MEXT] call for agenda items for mext interim meeting X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, we are working on the agenda for the interim meeting. If some of you have some item that would like to be discussed, please let us know. Regards, marcelo _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From AprilsnoopHerbert@lyngsat.com Wed Jan 09 00:04:05 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCT6j-00086I-7X; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:04:05 -0500 Received: from host179-96-dynamic.11-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.11.96.179] helo=asdfghj) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCT6g-0008Iw-HM; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:04:03 -0500 Received: from adjectival by lyngsat.com with SMTP id ySYXpvpV4t for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 06:03:21 -0100 From: "Gail Eldridge" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCgZQ-0007pn-JF for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:26:36 -0500 Received: from [82.139.21.137] (helo=user21.137.udn.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCgZN-00075i-DN for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:26:34 -0500 Received: from [82.139.21.137] by aacomedy.com; Wed, 8 Jan 2008 20:34:46 +0100 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2008 20:34:46 +0100 From: "Willie Krause" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.5.30) Home Reply-To: akstcaacomedymnsdgs@aacomedy.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <036761079.39837220477755@aacomedy.com> To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: miser MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Every type of pills which are best quality. check it out--> http://www railweather com Remove the spaces and put DOTS to use the URL. Secure and very safe. From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 09 16:35:45 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCia5-0000aG-T5; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:35:25 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCia3-0000a8-TR for nemo@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:35:23 -0500 Received: from qmta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.80]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCia3-0001js-6b for nemo@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:35:23 -0500 Received: from OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.43]) by QMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id b6nX1Y0050vp7WL0A0KT00; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:35:22 +0000 Received: from [192.168.10.35] ([68.41.54.91]) by OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id b9as1Y00B1y4cik8R00000; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:35:09 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ADP1vPCUax0A:10 a=Tw5KaLuHAAAA:8 a=PS-qks92ZV3LtEiSlcUA:9 a=RvDi4NaWHZDuPcIca04A:7 a=Vvg9d_B2WVShGxHBVrPAAT_nOrIA:4 a=XS0JvM4Kc5YA:10 Message-ID: <47853E08.5020206@acm.org> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:35:04 -0500 From: Ken Laberteaux User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b132cb3ed2d4be2017585bf6859e1ede Subject: [nemo] CFP--VehiculAr Inter-NETworking (VANET) 2008 X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: NEMO Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org ANNOUNCEMENT and CALL FOR PAPERS ACM VANET 2008 Vehicle to Vehicle -- Vehicle to Roadside -- Vehicle to Internet The Fifth ACM International Workshop on VehiculAr Inter-NETworking In conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2008 Date: To be announced San Francisco, California, USA Sponsored by ACM SIGMOBILE http://www.sigmobile.org/workshops/vanet2008/ Important Dates (tentative): Paper Submission Deadline: April 6th Notification of Acceptance: June 6th Camera-Ready Deadline: June 27th The goal of this workshop is to present and discuss recent advances in the development of vehicular inter-networking (VANET) technologies. Based on short- and medium-range communication as well as on cellular systems, vehicular inter-networking will enable vehicular safety applications (including collision and other safety warnings) as well as non-safety applications (like real-time traffic congestion and routing information, high-speed tolling, mobile infotainment, and many others). The creation of high-performance, highly reliable, highly scalable, secure, and privacy-preserving VANET technologies presents an extraordinary challenge for the wireless research community. A high degree of communication reliability is needed under unfavorable conditions. Clearly, the specificity of vehicular inter-networking in terms of mobility behavior, applications scenarios, and application requirements makes VANET research an exciting and demanding application- and purpose-driven sub-discipline of wireless networking. Furthermore, VANET present a very active field of research, development, standardization, and field trials. Throughout the world, there are many national and international projects in government, industry, and academia devoted to VANET. These include consortia like Vehicle Safety Consortium (US), Car-2-Car Communication Consortium (Europe), and Advanced Safety Vehicle Program (Japan), standardization efforts like IEEE 802.11p (WAVE), and field trials like the large-scale Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Program (VII) in the US. Following the successes of VANET 2004 held in Philadelphia, VANET 2005 held in Cologne, Germany, VANET 2006 in Los Angeles, CA, and VANET 2007 in Montréal, QC, Canada, the Fifth ACM International Workshop on Vehicular Inter-Networking (VANET) will be held in San Francisco, CA in conjunction with MobiCom 2008. Authors are invited to submit papers presenting new research related to the theory or practice of vehicular inter-networking (VANET). All submissions must describe original research, not published or currently under review for another workshop, conference, or journal. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to: - Channel modeling - Modulation and coding - Power control and scalability issues - Medium access control protocols - Multi-channel organization and operation - Communication protocol design - Safety and non-safety applications - Vehicle-to-vehicle/roadside/Internet communication - Simulation frameworks - Field operational testing - Network management - Security issues and countermeasures - Privacy issues Submission Instructions All paper submissions will be handled electronically. Papers must be in PDF format, no longer than 10 pages (single- or double-column), in font no smaller than 11 points, and must fit properly on US Letter-sized paper (8.5 inch x 11 inch) with reasonable margins. Submitted papers will be judged based on their quality through a double-blind review process, where the identities of the authors are withheld from the reviewers. Detailed instructions for paper submission will be posted on the VANET 2008 web page at: http://www.sigmobile.org/workshops/vanet2008/. Organizing Committee: General Co-Chairs: Varsha Sadekar, General Motors Paolo Santi, Italian Natl. Research Council Technical Program Co-Chairs: Yih-Chun Hu, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Martin Mauve, Heinrich-Heine University in Düsseldorf Technical Program Committee: Fan Bai , General Motors Levente Buttyan Budapest University of Technology and Economics Eylem Ekici, Ohio State University Andreas Festag, NEC Europe Ltd Hannes Hartenstein, University of Karlsruhe Jean-Pierre Hubaux, EPFL Markus Jakobsson , Indiana University Daniel Jiang, Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America, Inc. Frank Kargl, Ulm University Timo Kosch , BMW Ken Laberteaux, Toyota Research Christof Paar, Ruhr-University Bochum Panagiotis (Panos) Papadimitratos, EPFL Maxim Raya, EPFL Björn Scheuermann, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf Rajeev Shorey, General Motors Research Daniel Stancil, Carnegie Mellon University Pravin Varaiya, University of California at Berkeley Michele Weigle, Old Dominion University Andre Weimerskirch, escrypt GmbH Web and Publicity Chair: Ken Laberteaux, Toyota Technical Center From JennieburgLacy@merriam-webster.com Wed Jan 09 17:37:36 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCjYF-0003tf-OH; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:37:35 -0500 Received: from [201.79.79.165] (helo=pc05) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCjYF-0003If-2q; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:37:35 -0500 Received: from graft by merriam-webster.com with SMTP id bogF9X9F44 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 20:34:53 +0300 From: "Carole Lacy" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCkkb-0004cn-C2; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:54:25 -0500 Received: from [89.123.176.105] (helo=speedtouch.lan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCkka-0004cc-4B; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:54:24 -0500 Received: from [89.123.176.105] by mailstore1.secureserver.net; Thu, 9 Jan 2008 01:53:13 +0200 From: "Miles Cordova" To: Subject: Satellite Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2008 01:53:13 +0200 Message-ID: <01c85262$64b64a80$69b07b59@jlui> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4963.1700 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.9 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 We have fda prescription medicine through our fully licensed pharmacy. All orders are overseen by licensed accredited medical staff. http://www.geocities.com/barbaraxoyecdg/ From ygyqxhjf@blueplatedirect.com Thu Jan 10 03:44:56 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCt1t-00036p-5f; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:44:49 -0500 Received: from [190.41.31.243] (helo=[190.41.31.243]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCt1s-0004aP-3O; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:44:48 -0500 Message-ID: <01c85271$faa5a180$f31f29be@ygyqxhjf> From: "Perry Tran" To: Subject: Re: Perry Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2008 03:44:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 X-Spam: Not detected X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Try fda prescription drugs through our fully licensed pharmacy. All orders are verified by our licensed accredited doctors. http://aaisqyxcpug.googlepages.com you have spoken (or worse, a flat tire), it's chasing butterflies, playing with At the same time, we be wrong (and what Spontaneous, From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 10 04:10:43 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCtQg-0006JT-3F; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:10:26 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCtQd-0006Hm-2f for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:10:23 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCtQc-00059P-J3 for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:10:22 -0500 Received: from [163.117.203.38] (unknown [163.117.203.38])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CBDC2A3B81;Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:10:20 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <161CC7D4-80C2-496D-ACC0-4E9A4AD73219@it.uc3m.es> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: marcelo bagnulo braun Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:10:17 +0100 To: mext@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-12.2833 TC:1F TRN:21 TV:5.0.1023(15658.003) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: Julien Laganier Subject: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, The proposed next steps in the rechartering process are the following. With this email, we ask people that have proposed new items to be included in the charter to send updated text based on the received feedback, clarifying questions and discussion so far. The deadline for proposed items text is sunday 13 feb. Then we will post the list of proposed charter items and we leave 10 days for discussing them, clarifying questions and so on. Then, we will ask people to express their opinions one the relevance of the work, by ordering the proposed items based on the priority of the proposed work. Hopefully this would allow us to understand where the WG stands and pick up a few new items to include in the charter right away and the rest of the work can be considered in future rechartering events. So, please send recharter item text before the 13 feb. Regards, marcelo _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mrt@jezebelmoon.com Thu Jan 10 08:49:04 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCxmK-0000ZS-Qp; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:49:04 -0500 Received: from [89.123.104.87] (helo=[89.123.104.87]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCxmJ-00027I-TG; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:49:04 -0500 Received: from [89.123.104.87] by mail.jezebelmoon.com; Thu, 9 Jan 2008 15:47:55 +0200 From: "Stacy Childs" To: Subject: Pepper Mist Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2008 15:47:55 +0200 Message-ID: <01c852d6$ffe90780$57687b59@mrt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1437 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 No more worries, men! Medical professionals have endorsed the HerbalMaxx system to help men just like you achieve increased SIZE, LENGTH and WIDTH of their Manhood http://oppxupguhnf.googlepages.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 10 09:31:16 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCyQw-0004N5-EX; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:31:02 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCyQw-0004My-1w for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:31:02 -0500 Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com ([47.129.242.56]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCyQv-00089n-LA for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:31:02 -0500 Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m0AER7H25103; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:27:07 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:30:06 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <161CC7D4-80C2-496D-ACC0-4E9A4AD73219@it.uc3m.es> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering Thread-Index: AchTaLAkeZWNeknMQAOrc3s6CA8qjwAKuSaw References: <161CC7D4-80C2-496D-ACC0-4E9A4AD73219@it.uc3m.es> From: "Ahmad Muhanna" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" , X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Cc: Julien Laganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Marcelo, Below is the Binding Revocation for IP Mobility recharter text after receiving all feedback. Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Define a binding revocation mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. This mechanism can be used by any entity involved in the base Mobile IPv6 protocol or one of its extensions to request its corresponding entity to terminate either one, multiple or all binding cache entries. This work will be a joint work with the NETLMM WG. Regards, Ahmad =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es]=20 > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:10 AM > To: mext@ietf.org > Cc: Julien Laganier > Subject: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering >=20 > Hi, >=20 > The proposed next steps in the rechartering process are the following. > With this email, we ask people that have proposed new items=20 > to be included in the charter to send updated text based on=20 > the received feedback, clarifying questions and discussion so=20 > far. The deadline for proposed items text is sunday 13 feb. >=20 > Then we will post the list of proposed charter items and we=20 > leave 10 days for discussing them, clarifying questions and so on. >=20 > Then, we will ask people to express their opinions one the=20 > relevance of the work, by ordering the proposed items based=20 > on the priority of the proposed work. Hopefully this would=20 > allow us to understand where the WG stands and pick up a few=20 > new items to include in the charter right away and the rest=20 > of the work can be considered in future rechartering events. >=20 > So, please send recharter item text before the 13 feb. >=20 > Regards, marcelo >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >=20 _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 10 10:38:17 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCzTD-00039a-TL; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:37:27 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCzTC-00039U-QO for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:37:26 -0500 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.131]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCzTB-0004mU-VF for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:37:26 -0500 Received: from [163.117.81.149] (wifi-81-149.uc3m.es [163.117.81.149])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90DB2E7778; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:37:24 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: References: <161CC7D4-80C2-496D-ACC0-4E9A4AD73219@it.uc3m.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:37:23 +0100 To: Ahmad Muhanna X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-22.4854 TC:1F TRN:36 TV:5.0.1023(15660.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Ahmad, after talking with the netlmm chairs, we agreed that we would remove =20 the last sentence from the charter text, but still keep the netlmm on =20= the loop so the proposed text would be: Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Define a binding revocation mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. This mechanism can be used by any entity involved in =20= the base Mobile IPv6 protocol or one of its extensions to request its corresponding entity to terminate either one, multiple or all =20 binding cache entries. Regards, marcelo El 10/01/2008, a las 15:30, Ahmad Muhanna escribi=F3: > Hi Marcelo, > > Below is the Binding Revocation for IP Mobility recharter text after > receiving all feedback. > > > Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > Define a binding revocation mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its > extensions. This mechanism can be used by any entity involved =20 > in the > base Mobile IPv6 protocol or one of its extensions to request its > corresponding entity to terminate either one, multiple or all =20 > binding > cache entries. This work will be a joint work with the NETLMM WG. > > Regards, > Ahmad > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:10 AM >> To: mext@ietf.org >> Cc: Julien Laganier >> Subject: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering >> >> Hi, >> >> The proposed next steps in the rechartering process are the =20 >> following. >> With this email, we ask people that have proposed new items >> to be included in the charter to send updated text based on >> the received feedback, clarifying questions and discussion so >> far. The deadline for proposed items text is sunday 13 feb. >> >> Then we will post the list of proposed charter items and we >> leave 10 days for discussing them, clarifying questions and so on. >> >> Then, we will ask people to express their opinions one the >> relevance of the work, by ordering the proposed items based >> on the priority of the proposed work. Hopefully this would >> allow us to understand where the WG stands and pick up a few >> new items to include in the charter right away and the rest >> of the work can be considered in future rechartering events. >> >> So, please send recharter item text before the 13 feb. >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 10 10:39:51 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCzVS-0003la-6x; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:39:46 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCzVQ-0003jz-0O for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:39:44 -0500 Received: from zrtps0kn.nortel.com ([47.140.192.55]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCzVP-0004oj-HJ for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:39:43 -0500 Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zrtps0kn.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m0AFdXg12770; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:39:33 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:39:25 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering Thread-Index: AchTnrXWicQjXqggQF+yNaByo+IrzAAAAiSg References: <161CC7D4-80C2-496D-ACC0-4E9A4AD73219@it.uc3m.es> From: "Ahmad Muhanna" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 287c806b254c6353fcb09ee0e53bbc5e Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Marcelo, No problem. Thanks for the update. Regards, Ahmad =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es]=20 > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:37 AM > To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10) > Cc: mext@ietf.org; Julien Laganier > Subject: Re: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering >=20 > Hi Ahmad, >=20 > after talking with the netlmm chairs, we agreed that we would=20 > remove the last sentence from the charter text, but still=20 > keep the netlmm on the loop >=20 > so the proposed text would be: >=20 > Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > Define a binding revocation mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its > extensions. This mechanism can be used by any entity=20 > involved in the > base Mobile IPv6 protocol or one of its extensions to request its > corresponding entity to terminate either one, multiple or=20 > all binding > cache entries. >=20 > Regards, marcelo >=20 >=20 > El 10/01/2008, a las 15:30, Ahmad Muhanna escribi=F3: >=20 > > Hi Marcelo, > > > > Below is the Binding Revocation for IP Mobility recharter=20 > text after=20 > > receiving all feedback. > > > > > > Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: > > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > Define a binding revocation mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its > > extensions. This mechanism can be used by any entity=20 > involved in=20 > > the > > base Mobile IPv6 protocol or one of its extensions to request its > > corresponding entity to terminate either one, multiple or all=20 > > binding > > cache entries. This work will be a joint work with the=20 > NETLMM WG. > > > > Regards, > > Ahmad > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:10 AM > >> To: mext@ietf.org > >> Cc: Julien Laganier > >> Subject: [MEXT] next steps on rechartering > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> The proposed next steps in the rechartering process are the=20 > >> following. > >> With this email, we ask people that have proposed new items to be=20 > >> included in the charter to send updated text based on the received=20 > >> feedback, clarifying questions and discussion so far. The deadline=20 > >> for proposed items text is sunday 13 feb. > >> > >> Then we will post the list of proposed charter items and=20 > we leave 10=20 > >> days for discussing them, clarifying questions and so on. > >> > >> Then, we will ask people to express their opinions one the=20 > relevance=20 > >> of the work, by ordering the proposed items based on the=20 > priority of=20 > >> the proposed work. Hopefully this would allow us to=20 > understand where=20 > >> the WG stands and pick up a few new items to include in=20 > the charter=20 > >> right away and the rest of the work can be considered in future=20 > >> rechartering events. > >> > >> So, please send recharter item text before the 13 feb. > >> > >> Regards, marcelo > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> MEXT mailing list > >> MEXT@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >> >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From SusannemcnallyMcmullen@ppccc.com Thu Jan 10 13:08:46 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD1pd-0004zf-Sw; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:08:45 -0500 Received: from pool-71-252-252-185.dllstx.fios.verizon.net ([71.252.252.185] helo=officepc) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD1pb-0001H4-JM; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:08:43 -0500 Received: from masonite by ppccc.com with SMTP id 7eMPINokCb for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:08:14 +0600 From: "Rachelle Schafer" To: Cc: , Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD2Oj-0005U7-JD; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:45:01 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD2Og-0005Ty-6Q for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:44:59 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD2Oe-0005Qy-EW for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:44:58 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so783866fgg.41 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:44:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=a/crKORzcSpu8kO+iUG+6ri+uQY5c/F3nkQKieHmmJM=; b=iEp3e0MvzV66cLghMDu4WIa/6w+gjxFQKE/UsRAeoDQKQYjCBrWXYrTOiANX6RdupTi+gfFQxmaBE1V72ARrMqiHtzHg+6vScQYH1x868MplTmkLen6rOM3MjN7UKRTY/pFsALZFLu5Jf/YRe97Ey5/sWSpxoj8PCENfIQbu4kU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qDwFpVkWVgHhFDJjJeWOnYnbWdX4GmhU6dJW0YxtmYrLfCG3b6L17Y7n6/ArFVi4i979Fe5tYj5JnGDfeoiNMWeEy4IBLxeYE4P/na96l8g83TkpWbiXd2qvRbFHZ6n0YSHfWKHd0bY5otPZxgV4PEP+0ZiyPDsZtKVcpiTNbcY= Received: by 10.86.95.20 with SMTP id s20mr990154fgb.67.1199990695195; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:44:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.86.15 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:44:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <729b68be0801101044p6331082dl801e49dd928b0cf7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:44:55 +0100 From: "Jean-Michel Combes" To: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [RFC3775 changes] Use of DHAAD mechanism? In-Reply-To: <729b68be0712280747m19d3df50x45845e3fd5c0708a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <729b68be0712110521g51bde3c5wb83d8569fa170449@mail.gmail.com> <475FF84F.7000802@gmail.com> <729b68be0712171525r6caca95m98007ba76109bffc@mail.gmail.com> <729b68be0712280747m19d3df50x45845e3fd5c0708a@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, 2007/12/28, Jean-Michel Combes : > Hi George, > > 2007/12/18, George Tsirtsis : > > Another thing to do maybe would be to add text to the security section > > indicating what the security issues with DHAAD might be. > > Good idea :) > I will submit some text when I will come back from vacations. > as promised, here is the text I suggest to add to the security section: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Section, sub-section and paragraph involved: 15.5 OLD TEXT: 15.5. Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery The dynamic home agent address discovery function could be used to learn the addresses of home agents in the home network. The ability to learn addresses of nodes may be useful to attackers because brute-force scanning of the address space is not practical with IPv6. Thus, they could benefit from any means which make mapping the networks easier. For example, if a security threat targeted at routers or even home agents is discovered, having a simple ICMP mechanism to easily find out possible targets may prove to be an additional (though minor) security risk. Apart from discovering the address(es) of home agents, attackers will not be able to learn much from this information, and mobile nodes cannot be tricked into using wrong home agents, as all other communication with the home agents is secure. NEW TEXT: 15.5. Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery The dynamic home agent address discovery function could be used to learn the addresses of home agents in the home network. The ability to learn addresses of nodes may be useful to attackers because brute-force scanning of the address space is not practical with IPv6. Thus, they could benefit from any means which make mapping the networks easier. For example, if a security threat targeted at routers or even home agents is discovered, having a simple ICMP mechanism to easily find out possible targets may prove to be an additional (though minor) security risk. Furthermore, it is impossible to authenticate a DHAAD request: the HA doesn't know who is behind the CoA used as source address in the request and the destination address is an anycast type address, forbidding the use of IKE/IPsec. At last, it is important to remember that the DHAAD mechanism is ICMP based and that many ISPs are blocking such type of messages today. Apart from discovering the address(es) of home agents, attackers will not be able to learn much from this information, and mobile nodes cannot be tricked into using wrong home agents, as all other communication with the home agents is secure. Nevertheless, it is strongly recommended to use the mechanisms specified in [Boot-Integrated] and [Boot-Split] instead of the DHAAD mechanism. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Section, sub-section and paragraph involved: 18.2 OLD TEXT: .... NEW TEXT (to add): [Boot-Integrated] Chowdhury, K. and A. Yegin, "MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario", draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc-05 (work in progress), July 2007. [Boot-Split] Giaretta et. al., "Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping in split scenario.", RFC 5026, October 2007. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Comments are welcome :) Best regards. JMC. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From pegh@mboflindon.com Thu Jan 10 17:25:41 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD5qG-0004lg-FU; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:25:40 -0500 Received: from [189.25.108.113] (helo=18925108113.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD5qE-0006X6-4Z; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:25:39 -0500 Received: from [189.25.108.113] by mailmx.lhm.com; Thu, 9 Jan 2008 19:24:25 -0300 Message-ID: <01c852f5$3e8dba80$716c19bd@pegh> From: "Virginia Snyder" To: Subject: Water Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2008 19:24:25 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2741.2600 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Try fda prescription medication through our licensed pharmacy. orders are overseen by our licensed accredited medical staff. http://SammyCurtisAP.googlepages.com From CodymichaelDouglas@wikipedia.org Thu Jan 10 18:33:21 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD6tk-0002Ua-M8; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:33:20 -0500 Received: from 94-127-22-190.adsl.tie.cl ([190.22.127.94] helo=pcciber3.company.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JD6tj-0007rA-WA; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:33:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host38490763.wikipedia.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id rOb5HzQO99.317359.i3s.Jo7.8408004045111 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:32:53 +0400 Message-ID: <1e07401c853e1$2d26be80$2e01a8c0@PcCiber3> From: "Allan Carlson" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_1E070_01C853E1.2D26BE80-- From JarrettsynchronousSykes@biophysics.com Thu Jan 10 23:19:55 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDBN4-0001cV-Sm; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:19:54 -0500 Received: from cpe-24-90-61-209.nyc.res.rr.com ([24.90.61.209] helo=toshibauser) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDBN4-0004Z2-Dn; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:19:54 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host27944457.biophysics.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id S3blQm6943.690220.37U.llj.2042615153199 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:18:53 +0800 Message-ID: <9940501c85409$1f01ce30$0a00a8c0@toshibauser> From: "Brooks Bernard" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:18:53 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_99401_01C85409.1F01CE30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_99401_01C85409.1F01CE30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_99401_01C85409.1F01CE30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_99401_01C85409.1F01CE30-- From upirvh@bpiron.com Fri Jan 11 02:12:12 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDE3n-0007I6-84; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:12:11 -0500 Received: from [85.99.88.75] (helo=dsl.dynamic85998875.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDE3l-0007xF-8F; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:12:10 -0500 Received: from [85.99.88.75] by mx4.business.mindspring.com; Fri, 10 Jan 2008 09:12:09 +0200 From: "Willa Mcknight" To: Subject: McknightPainkillers Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2008 09:12:09 +0200 Message-ID: <01c85368$e09aba80$4b586355@upirvh> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea We sell only US FDA approved prescription medicine through our fully licensed pharmacy. All orders are overviewed by our licensed accredited physicians. http://www.easymedilink.com are providing a variety of look "in the wild". parents and you have spoken principles will help on the floor with From akstcaavologymnsdgs@aavology.com Fri Jan 11 06:39:52 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDIEq-0007iV-Fu; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:39:52 -0500 Received: from [222.100.61.228] (helo=your-ausgekasx8.kornet) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDIEp-0004xG-9Z; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:39:52 -0500 Received: from [222.100.61.228] by aavology.com; Fri, 10 Jan 2008 20:48:15 +0900 Message-ID: <01c853ca$1f62b180$e43d64de@akstcaavologymnsdgs> From: "Rickey Champagne" To: Subject: existenceCar-race Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2008 20:48:15 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-2"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Grow it large http://jinrost.com From dfaqjamptjot@bmhamericas.com Fri Jan 11 10:02:56 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDLPL-00075l-Tk; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:02:55 -0500 Received: from [200.117.145.120] (helo=windows-5sjzj3m) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDLPK-0000oG-Qx; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:02:55 -0500 Received: from [200.117.145.120] by usmail.bmhamericas.com; Fri, 10 Jan 2008 15:59:39 +0100 Message-ID: <01c853a1$cdf0a780$789175c8@dfaqjamptjot> From: "Vickie Marino" To: Subject: pharmacyTorch Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2008 15:59:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed We sell only fda prescription medications through our fully licensed pharmacy. orders are overviewed by our licensed accredited medical staff. http://www.easymedilink.com may be somewhat challenging. Something Dr. T. Berry Brazelton praised or commerce business, In their native the academy's report. From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 11 13:26:15 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDOZq-0006jb-Qc; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:25:58 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDOZp-0006j4-RU for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:25:57 -0500 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.131]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDOZp-0007pn-Cn for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:25:57 -0500 Received: from [163.117.81.149] (wifi-81-149.uc3m.es [163.117.81.149])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB832EE669for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:25:56 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <9084907E-E066-4C96-9191-2A0EDF6FFFD0@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: mext@ietf.org From: marcelo bagnulo braun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:25:56 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-2.5052 TC:1F TRN:10 TV:5.0.1023(15662.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Subject: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting web site X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, We have setup a web site for the interim meeting where you can find the accommodation information. In addition, if you are coming to the meeting, we kindly ask you to register through the web site, so we can properly setup the venue, room, coffee and so on. The web site is: http://enjambre.it.uc3m.es/mext/ We will be shortly announcing the agenda for the meeting Regards, marcelo _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 11 13:35:21 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDOiq-0006JG-FX; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:35:16 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDOip-0006Is-AC for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:35:15 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDOio-00080I-TJ for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:35:15 -0500 Received: from [163.117.81.149] (wifi-81-149.uc3m.es [163.117.81.149])by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FB82BB5ADfor ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:35:13 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <42D1E119-3163-42DE-BE95-4D32214BEFCD@bagnulo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: mext@ietf.org From: marcelo bagnulo braun Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:35:14 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-5.5972 TC:01 TRN:26 TV:5.0.1023(15662.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Subject: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, With this email we issue the WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha- goals-00.txt The WGLC will be open till the 31 of january. We kindly ask the WG to review the document and provide comments. Please note that a valid comment at this stage is positive feedback about the document being ready to be shipped. So, please if you think the doc is ready, do express this to the ml (or to the chairs) For you convenience, additional information about the document: Title : AAA Goals for Mobile IPv6 Author(s) : G. Giaretta, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2007-12-27 In commercial and enterprise deployments Mobile IPv6 can be a service offered by a Mobility Services Provider (MSP). In this case all protocol operations may need to be explicitly authorized and traced, requiring the interaction between Mobile IPv6 and the AAA infrastructure. Integrating the AAA infrastructure (e.g. NAS and AAA server) offers also a solution component for Mobile IPv6 bootstrapping. This document describes various scenarios where a AAA interface for Mobile IPv6 is required. Additionally, it lists design goals and requirements for such an interface. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt Regards, Julien and marcelo _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From DarenemileJacobson@finaid.org Fri Jan 11 15:27:52 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDQTo-0005lL-03; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:27:52 -0500 Received: from clsm-74-212-59-140-pppoe.dsl.clsm.epix.net ([74.212.59.140] helo=homepc.domain.invalid) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDQTn-0002N0-Jv; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:27:51 -0500 Received: from dapple by finaid.org with SMTP id o1wlqfmmLJ for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:26:43 +0500 From: "Robby Kline" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDUNB-0002uU-1R; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:37:17 -0500 Received: from cpe-72-225-144-116.nj.res.rr.com ([72.225.144.116] helo=KALIBERD-IAS3ZY.nj.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDUN9-0007IM-Ty; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:37:16 -0500 Received: from [72.225.144.116] by mail.metia.nl; Fri, 10 Jan 2008 16:36:04 -0800 Message-ID: <01c853a6$e4ca5140$7490e148@alanm> From: "Lester Bird" To: Subject: Magnet Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2008 16:36:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db All Med s are onsale today Dont miss out on this savings http://SaundraMaddenSW.googlepages.com From KurtgraceVargas@wikipedia.org Sat Jan 12 03:50:45 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDc4c-0003Tt-01; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:50:38 -0500 Received: from 12-210-31-11.client.mchsi.com ([12.210.31.11] helo=a635w) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDc4b-0005nJ-Il; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:50:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host73045438.wikipedia.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id orNJrrWo59.864734.llc.Ixm.7018602084445 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:49:45 +0600 Message-ID: <162a1901c854f8$32126cb0$0301a8c0@a635w> From: "Jimmie Fowler" To: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_162A15_01C854F8.32126CB0-- From JaysongigabitDurham@bookcritics.org Sat Jan 12 07:32:10 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDfX0-00008u-C9; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:32:10 -0500 Received: from 85.155.23.169.dyn.user.ono.com ([85.155.23.169] helo=equipo) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDfX0-0001Ww-0p; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:32:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host50840518.bookcritics.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 1t4LFbRX17.412038.aE2.VH4.0201060645645 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:31:28 +0000 Message-ID: <113d701c85517$1d9d8390$0508a8c0@equipo> From: "Ward Leblanc" To: Subject: Your order Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:31:28 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_113D3_01C85517.1D9D8390" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080111-0, 11/01/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_113D3_01C85517.1D9D8390 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_113D3_01C85517.1D9D8390 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_113D3_01C85517.1D9D8390-- From ab.toet@restaurantedongil.com Sat Jan 12 07:34:17 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDfZ3-0003YA-Mb; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:34:17 -0500 Received: from mpd-2738.tvcom.ru ([80.246.85.39] helo=xan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDfZ2-0001ZY-Gp; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:34:17 -0500 Received: from [80.246.85.39] by mail.restaurantedongil.com; Sat, 11 Jan 2008 15:33:03 +0300 From: "Delbert Ingram" To: Subject: Nail Salt Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2008 15:33:03 +0300 Message-ID: <01c85467$41102180$2755f650@ab.toet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2741.2600 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 No more worries, men! Medical professionals have endorsed the HerbalMaxx system to help men just like you achieve increased SIZE, LENGTH and WIDTH of their Manhood http://orzbpqyhhk.googlepages.com From DarenintoxicantAvery@suntimes.com Sat Jan 12 08:05:35 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDg3K-0001tv-Im; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:05:34 -0500 Received: from cpc1-stok10-0-0-cust258.bagu.cable.ntl.com ([80.7.181.3] helo=e3c7a46c3816480) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDg3K-0002CL-43; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:05:34 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Errol Hendricks" To: Cc: , =20
Your credit doesn't = matter to=20 us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 require IMMEDIATE cash to spend ANY way you like or wish Extra money to = give=20 your company a boost or need A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, = here=20 is our best deal we can offer you TONIGHT (hurry, this deal will expire = THIS=20 NIGHT):
=20
 
$61,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when best deal = is gone, it=20 is gone. Simply fill this elementary form...
=20
 
Do not worry about = approval, your=20 credit score will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://thewworld.net.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_D972_01C8551B.D78896B0-- From VirginiaapologeticSwain@proboards84.com Sat Jan 12 10:21:37 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDiAz-0003aQ-3d; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:21:37 -0500 Received: from [208.38.24.170] (helo=office) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDiAy-0004hL-NX; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 10:21:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host72086666.proboards84.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id RCDH9GIt60.193593.aOB.Ki5.3156662953886 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:20:54 +0700 Message-ID: From: "Cynthia Mora" To: Subject: Confirmation link Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:20:54 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_E4529_01C8552E.CFAF7C20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_E4529_01C8552E.CFAF7C20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_E4529_01C8552E.CFAF7C20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_E4529_01C8552E.CFAF7C20-- From AltadrawbackMichel@champcarworldseries.com Sat Jan 12 15:11:23 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDmhO-0003mX-QU; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:11:22 -0500 Received: from [190.25.227.6] (helo=onlinexp32635e) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDmhM-0001gB-8L; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:11:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host88889927.champcarworldseries.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id tim7NuEb34.065252.pXZ.QCX.3878704724435 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:10:43 +0500 Message-ID: <4947f01c85557$47494900$0500a8c0@onlinexp32635e> From: "Maribel Schafer" To: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_4947B_01C85557.47494900-- From TessanewtHerrington@christianitytoday.com Sat Jan 12 17:26:31 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDooB-0005hv-0I; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:26:31 -0500 Received: from 84.121.13.164.dyn.user.ono.com ([84.121.13.164] helo=x6d46a7e02a484) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDooA-00043x-Gl; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:26:30 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host95605798.christianitytoday.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id VUVB5RkG58.213737.MtI.zKG.1896404360474 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:25:40 -0100 Message-ID: <9165901c8556a$28ecc8c0$6502a8c0@x6d46a7e02a484> From: "Marci Begay" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_91655_01C8556A.28ECC8C0-- From Gemhosley@lakevetonline.com Sat Jan 12 17:50:11 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDpB5-0006r8-9P for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:50:11 -0500 Received: from user44-090.satfilm.net.pl ([77.91.44.90]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDpB4-00053W-Ny for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:50:11 -0500 Received: from kancelar-d9e850 ([103.109.84.133]:19466 "EHLO kancelar-d9e850" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by user44-090.satfilm.net.pl with ESMTP id S22HZQTWLONZUKVY (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:50:25 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c8556d$7b47d300$5a2c5b4d@kancelard9e850> From: "Gem hosley" To: Subject: haigan Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:50:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C85575.DD0C3B00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080112-0, 2008-01-12), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C85575.DD0C3B00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Finally, a breakthrough in penis supplements - GUARANTEED results. = http://www.vnirorgh.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C85575.DD0C3B00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Finally, a breakthrough in penis supplements - = GUARANTEED=20 results. http://www.vnirorgh.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C85575.DD0C3B00-- From ddruon@hydroglo.com Sat Jan 12 19:19:34 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDqZa-0006DR-NS; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:19:34 -0500 Received: from [79.139.169.108] (helo=homepc) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JDqZZ-0006co-Hq; Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:19:34 -0500 Received: from [79.139.169.108] by mailstore1.secureserver.net; , 12 Jan 2008 03:18:21 +0300 Message-ID: <01c854c9$c88e7c80$6ca98b4f@ddruon> From: "Candice Warner" To: Subject: Army Sword Date: , 12 Jan 2008 03:18:21 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3338.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3338.1 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db No more worries, men! Medical professionals have endorsed the HerbalMaxx system to help men just like you achieve increased SIZE, LENGTH and WIDTH of their Manhood http://pnpguhqsxur.googlepages.com From EttacahillCope@gdconf.com Sun Jan 13 07:06:16 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JE1bL-0008QM-2t; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:06:07 -0500 Received: from 100-3.5-85.cust.bluewin.ch ([85.5.3.100] helo=d8lmw82j) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JE1bK-0005RP-NN; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:06:06 -0500 Received: from repeater by gdconf.com with SMTP id HVEXC0bUuo for ; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:05:29 -0100 From: "Jewel Feldman" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEAdO-0007s4-PC; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:44:50 -0500 Received: from [66.0.137.100] (helo=[66.0.137.100]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEAdN-0007h4-HX; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:44:50 -0500 Received: from [66.0.137.100] by smtp.secureserver.net; , 12 Jan 2008 16:43:34 -0500 Date: , 12 Jan 2008 16:43:34 -0500 From: "Agnes Woody" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.6) Educational Reply-To: jwilcoxon@infusionmp.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <221696230.53969517656939@infusionmp.com> To: nat-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Needle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 All Med s are onsale today Dont miss out on this savings http://AlfonsoBattleZP.googlepages.com From rlvxt@brands-ltd.com Sun Jan 13 18:31:22 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JECIU-0002La-DV; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:31:22 -0500 Received: from [190.25.219.122] (helo=corporat190-025219122.sta.etb.net.co) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JECIT-0001gs-5S; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:31:22 -0500 Received: from [190.25.219.122] by mail.brands-ltd.com; , 12 Jan 2008 18:31:20 -0500 From: "Jack Queen" To: Subject: Jack Date: , 12 Jan 2008 18:31:20 -0500 Message-ID: <01c85549$53628c00$7adb19be@rlvxt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 No more worries, men! Medical professionals have endorsed the HerbalMaxx system to help men just like you achieve increased SIZE, LENGTH and WIDTH of their Manhood http://tbrtubygdsba.googlepages.com From leaha.Gaeta@numbergo.com Mon Jan 14 01:06:02 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEISQ-0006pv-1l for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:06:02 -0500 Received: from host58-113-static.116-81-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([81.116.113.58]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEISP-0008Qj-H7 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:06:01 -0500 Received: from WMBGRM202 ([142.183.168.128] helo=WMBGRM202) by host58-113-static.116-81-b.business.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1DKTVO-000XWS-Xm for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:06:16 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c85673$7d93b8c0$3a717451@WMBGRM202> From: "leaha Gaeta" To: Subject: nakadeam Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:05:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8567B.DF5820C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8567B.DF5820C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Finally, a breakthrough in penis supplements - GUARANTEED results. = http://www.cnohroha.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8567B.DF5820C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Finally, a breakthrough in penis supplements - = GUARANTEED=20 results. http://www.cnohroha.com/
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8567B.DF5820C0-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 14 02:38:36 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEJtg-0006Xo-Jn; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:38:16 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEJtf-0006Xa-70 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:38:15 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEJte-0001Th-CB for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:38:15 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2008 07:38:12 -0000 Received: from proxy1-nsn.nsn-inter.net (EHLO [217.115.75.229]) [217.115.75.229] by mail.gmx.net (mp043) with SMTP; 14 Jan 2008 08:38:12 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/wkrZNk+Pw2u76V7tJAOutfpGwpTOrSnyk+q2qVT za+6vgj+HgINbb Message-ID: <478B1163.9070005@gmx.net> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:38:11 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt References: <42D1E119-3163-42DE-BE95-4D32214BEFCD@bagnulo.net> In-Reply-To: <42D1E119-3163-42DE-BE95-4D32214BEFCD@bagnulo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0cff8c3ec906d056784362c06f5f88c1 Cc: dime@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org A few minor comments below. FROM: The Home Agent can the assigned either in the Access Service Provider's network or in the seprate network. TO: The Home Agent can be assigned either in the Access Service Provider's network or in the separate network. G1.1 The AAAH server and the HA MUST be able to authenticate each other (mutual authentication) in order to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the HA. In some deployment scenarios, it may not be feasible for HA and AAA server to mutually authenticate each other. In such a case, several AAA intermediate proxies could forward MIP6 bootstrapping information between HA and AAA. Thus, to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the HA, the path between HA and AAAH should be secure. [hannes] "should be secure" is a bit fuzzy. In essence you are building on the AAA model with a hop-by-hop security mechanisms. Maybe a better wording would be " Thus, to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the HA, the communication security mechanisms available with the AAA infrastructure MUST be used between adjacent AAA peers. " I would fold requirement G1.2 and G1.3 into G1.1 since they are so closely related. G2.10 The AAAH server MUST be able to authorize the MN for Dual Stack operation [9]. What exactly does this mean? G2.11 The AAAH server MUST be able to indicate to the HA whether the bearer traffic for the MN needs to receive IPsec ESP protection. I don't understand this either. G2.12 The HA MUST be able to authenticate the MN through the AAAH in case a pre-share key is used in IKEv2 for user authentication. The exact procedure is part of the solution space. Why do you list this requirement? I believe it is pretty much useless given that it is a consequence of the solution. I suggest to delete this requirement. G4.1 The AAA-HA interface MUST allow the HA to act as a pass-through EAP authenticator. This is a consequence of the already established solution. I suggest to delete it. G4.2 The AAA - HA interface SHOULD support authentication based on the Mobility Message Authentication Options defined in [5]. A solution must be specified in the specification but it's usage is optional. Section 5.4. about Mobile Node Authentication: G4.5 The HA MUST include the Mobile Node Identifier option [7] in the AAA transactions with the AAAH server. This requirement almost sounds like a solution description already. Isn't this a solution detail that does not need to be mentioned in such a document? The same is true for requirement G4.7, which says: G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is not included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is successful, the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the HA if the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH MUST send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA if the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. This paragraph sounds really complex. The first sentence is pretty much irrelevant for such a requirements document. Isn't the 2nd sentence covered by requirement in G4.3 already? G4.6 The AAAH server SHOULD be able to authenticate the MN identified by the value in the Mobile Node Identifier option using the value in MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option and the corresponding value of the SPI. Isn't requirement G4.6 already covered by the previous requirements? G6.2 The NAS SHOULD be able to notify the AAAH of the functionalities described in [4]. Couldn't we just list what it should notify the AAAH about? It isn't a lot. Ciao Hannes marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Hi, > > With this email we issue the WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt > The WGLC will be open till the 31 of january. > We kindly ask the WG to review the document and provide comments. > > Please note that a valid comment at this stage is positive feedback > about the document being ready to be shipped. > So, please if you think the doc is ready, do express this to the ml > (or to the chairs) > > For you convenience, additional information about the document: > > > Title : AAA Goals for Mobile IPv6 > Author(s) : G. Giaretta, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2007-12-27 > > In commercial and enterprise deployments Mobile IPv6 can be a service > offered by a Mobility Services Provider (MSP). In this case all > protocol operations may need to be explicitly authorized and traced, > requiring the interaction between Mobile IPv6 and the AAA > infrastructure. Integrating the AAA infrastructure (e.g. NAS and > AAA server) offers also a solution component for Mobile IPv6 > bootstrapping. This document describes various scenarios where a AAA > interface for Mobile IPv6 is required. Additionally, it lists design > goals and requirements for such an interface. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt > > Regards, Julien and marcelo > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From v321@bazarsiah.com Mon Jan 14 07:18:49 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEOHB-00026O-3Q for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:18:49 -0500 Received: from firewall.novatronics.com ([216.191.176.173]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEOHA-0007uZ-P8 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:18:49 -0500 Received: from c200517 ([128.128.191.60] helo=c200517) by firewall.novatronics.com ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1Tthjq-000EZM-Dl for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:19:48 -0500 Message-ID: <7152F97B.C603DB78@bazarsiah.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 07:19:32 -0500 From: "v Kellar" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: upottaen Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Want a huge penis like the famous porn stars? now you can. http://Beeneverest.com/
From ralphp@cdkconseil.com Mon Jan 14 09:54:42 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEQi2-00053W-FC; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:54:42 -0500 Received: from [200.196.37.106] (helo=[200.196.37.106]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEQi1-0003Fj-46; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:54:42 -0500 Received: from [200.196.37.106] by SMTP2.lerelaisinternet.com; Mon, 13 Jan 2008 11:53:25 -0300 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2008 11:53:25 -0300 From: "Joseph Jimenez" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.5.25) Educational Reply-To: ralphp@cdkconseil.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <998737669.52967450143227@cdkconseil.com> To: mpls-request@lists.ietf.org Subject: Horse MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed We have Hard to find med s. Dont miss out on this huge savings http://fastexciting.com academy committees for Numerous studies help them excel. super parents, I believe this message unstructured play where safe instead allowing has a such as blocks and dolls,really need for front of get-smart that they're From NewtonstoppageValencia@streetswithoutcars.com Mon Jan 14 11:46:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JESRq-00060Y-9Z; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:46:06 -0500 Received: from 168.67.202.62.cust.bluewin.ch ([62.202.67.168] helo=karin) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JESRp-0006MQ-Fd; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:46:05 -0500 Message-ID: <04cf01c856cc$f3eaaf20$0a6ea8c0@Karin> From: "Horacio Hewitt" To: , =20
Join the Thousands of = Americans GETTING=20 OUT OF DEBT!
 
Be DEBT FREE in as little = as 12=20 MONTHS.
 
Please visit the link = below and get a=20 free debt consultation today. NO OBLIGATION!
 
http://thezworld.net.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_04CB_01C856CC.F3EAAF20-- From rqrdixkvosf@blochlumber.com Mon Jan 14 17:51:05 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEY92-0002RE-JG; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:51:04 -0500 Received: from [81.215.247.160] (helo=dsl.dynamic81215247160.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEY91-0000Na-76; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:51:04 -0500 Received: from [81.215.247.160] by CLUSTER9A.US.MESSAGELABS.com; Tue, 14 Jan 2008 00:51:02 +0200 From: "Claudette Campos" To: Subject: Re: Claudette Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2008 00:51:02 +0200 Message-ID: <01c85647$88ed9f00$a0f7d751@rqrdixkvosf> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 We sell only popular med s. Dont miss out on this huge savings http://fastexciting.com From info@marblehouseindia.com Mon Jan 14 20:29:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEaby-0008S6-T1; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:29:06 -0500 Received: from [216.218.125.229] (helo=[216.218.125.229]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEabx-0003lb-Mg; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:29:06 -0500 Received: from [216.218.125.229] by mail.marblehouseindia.com; Mon, 13 Jan 2008 20:27:50 -0500 From: "Katheryn Holder" To: Subject: Ring Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2008 20:27:50 -0500 Message-ID: <01c85622$c429a700$e57ddad8@info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Look at our popular medication s. Dont miss out on this huge savings http://FletcherGillLF.googlepages.com for many families. But so does living beneficial but should not be viewed overscheduled overscheduled and 3-year-old in the shuffle, "Perhaps above all, "I hope it will have some effect,"free play -- whether It says enrichment tools playtime can create From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 14 20:45:48 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEarv-0007v4-KU; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:45:35 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEaru-0007uj-0p; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:45:34 -0500 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEarr-0001mK-Rr; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:45:34 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: s=qcdkim; d=qualcomm.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:Received:Received: X-MimeOLE:Content-class:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Subject:Date:Message-ID: In-Reply-To:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:From:To:Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime; b=M3EFvDWkKTKlj+i8hQpJ4NzXEvWPKQQII+/h9Wy+AvsD7A46bHvfCjvy Bd8WmfyBLMlL+znIv+Pkv8/agv9f6TFISN3BOeGZQWvl4U5ea9qXvXUsK ERKKAVLrThMKJEr4HIemt7jpk1lwzt0g84M6iNdeh5cXmjFQCFoo4wMvM M=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5100,188,5206"; a="520864" Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Jan 2008 17:45:27 -0800 Received: from msgtransport04.qualcomm.com (msgtransport04.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.156]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m0F1jRSC023880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:45:27 -0800 Received: from SANEXCAS03.na.qualcomm.com (sanexcas03.qualcomm.com [172.30.32.65]) by msgtransport04.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m0F1jQqG006355; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:45:27 -0800 Received: from NAEX12.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.246]) by SANEXCAS03.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:45:26 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:45:25 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <478B1163.9070005@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt Thread-Index: AchWgHrr+fuLodV3QviY2PVH3F3MeAAlJjLg From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" , "marcelo bagnulo braun" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2008 01:45:26.0910 (UTC) FILETIME=[4D6119E0:01C85718] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5bfa71b340354e384155def5e70b13b Cc: dime@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Hannes, Thanks for the comments. Please see inline >=20 > A few minor comments below. >=20 >=20 > FROM: >=20 > The Home Agent can the assigned either in the Access Service > Provider's network or in the seprate network. >=20 >=20 > TO: >=20 > The Home Agent can be assigned either in the Access Service > Provider's network or in the separate network. >=20 > Good catch, thanks. =20 > G1.1 The AAAH server and the HA MUST be able to authenticate each > other (mutual authentication) in order to prevent the installation > of unauthorized state on the HA. > In some deployment scenarios, it > may not be feasible for HA and AAA server to mutually authenticate > each other. In such a case, several AAA intermediate proxies > could forward MIP6 bootstrapping information between HA and AAA. > Thus, to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the HA, > the path between HA and AAAH should be secure. >=20 > [hannes] "should be secure" is a bit fuzzy. In essence you are building > on the > AAA model with a hop-by-hop security mechanisms. Maybe a better wording > would be >=20 > " > Thus, to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the HA, > the communication security mechanisms available with the AAA > infrastructure > MUST be used between adjacent AAA peers. > " >=20 Good. I will change the text to the proposed one. Thanks > I would fold requirement G1.2 and G1.3 into G1.1 since they are so closely > related. >=20 What do you mean exactly? Are you suggesting to have a single requirement? >=20 >=20 >=20 > G2.10 The AAAH server MUST be able to authorize the MN for Dual > Stack operation [9]. >=20 > What exactly does this mean? >=20 It means that a MN may be authorized to use MIPv6 as in RFC3775 or may be authorized also to have an IPv4 HoA assigned for DSMIPv6.=20 >=20 > G2.11 The AAAH server MUST be able to indicate to the HA whether the > bearer traffic for the MN needs to receive IPsec ESP protection. >=20 > I don't understand this either. >=20 The AAA may indicate if the MIPv6 tunnel should be an IP-in-IP tunnel or an ESP tunnel.=20 >=20 >=20 > G2.12 The HA MUST be able to authenticate the MN through the AAAH in > case a pre-share key is used in IKEv2 for user authentication. > The exact procedure is part of the solution space. >=20 >=20 > Why do you list this requirement? I believe it is pretty much useless > given > that it is a consequence of the solution. I suggest to delete this > requirement. >=20 I agree it is a consequence of the solution. However, I think it is good to make it clear here as RFC 5026 provides text for PSK, EAP and certificates. I don't think it is bad to have it. > G4.1 The AAA-HA interface MUST allow the HA to act as a pass-through > EAP authenticator. >=20 > This is a consequence of the already established solution. I suggest to > delete it. >=20 >=20 Same as above. >=20 > G4.2 The AAA - HA interface SHOULD support authentication based on > the Mobility Message Authentication Options defined in [5]. >=20 > A solution must be specified in the specification but it's usage is > optional. >=20 Can you clarify your comment please? >=20 > Section 5.4. about Mobile Node Authentication: >=20 > G4.5 The HA MUST include the Mobile Node Identifier option [7] in > the AAA transactions with the AAAH server. >=20 >=20 > This requirement almost sounds like a solution description already. > Isn't this a solution detail that does not need to be mentioned in such > a document? >=20 Yes, you are probably right. The idea was that the HA MUST include an identifier of the MN in the AAA transactions.=20 A possible rewording could be "The HA MUST include an identifier of the mobile node in the AAA transactions with the AAAH server" Would that work? Or are you suggesting removing completely the goal? >=20 > The same > is true for requirement G4.7, which says: >=20 > G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is not > included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication > Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is successful, > the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the HA if > the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH MUST > send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA if > the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. >=20 >=20 > This paragraph sounds really complex. The first sentence is pretty much > irrelevant for such a requirements document. Isn't the 2nd sentence > covered > by requirement in G4.3 already? >=20 I agree we can remove the first sentence. The second sentence is different form G4.3, though: G4.3 is about the HA to request the keying material while G4.7 is about the AAAH sending it. Would you prefer merge the two goals? >=20 > G4.6 The AAAH server SHOULD be able to authenticate the MN > identified by the value in the Mobile Node Identifier option using > the value in MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option and the > corresponding value of the SPI. >=20 >=20 > Isn't requirement G4.6 already covered by the previous requirements? >=20 >=20 Yes, agree. I hope Kuntal is fine if we remove this goal. >=20 >=20 > G6.2 The NAS SHOULD be able to notify the AAAH of the > functionalities described in [4]. >=20 >=20 > Couldn't we just list what it should notify the AAAH about? It isn't a lot. >=20 OK, suggested rewording: G6.2 The NAS MUST be able to notify the AAAH if it supports the AAA extensions designed to receive the HA assignment information [4]. Gerardo >=20 > Ciao > Hannes >=20 >=20 > marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > > Hi, > > > > With this email we issue the WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals- > 00.txt > > The WGLC will be open till the 31 of january. > > We kindly ask the WG to review the document and provide comments. > > > > Please note that a valid comment at this stage is positive feedback > > about the document being ready to be shipped. > > So, please if you think the doc is ready, do express this to the ml > > (or to the chairs) > > > > For you convenience, additional information about the document: > > > > > > Title : AAA Goals for Mobile IPv6 > > Author(s) : G. Giaretta, et al. > > Filename : draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt > > Pages : 12 > > Date : 2007-12-27 > > > > In commercial and enterprise deployments Mobile IPv6 can be a service > > offered by a Mobility Services Provider (MSP). In this case all > > protocol operations may need to be explicitly authorized and traced, > > requiring the interaction between Mobile IPv6 and the AAA > > infrastructure. Integrating the AAA infrastructure (e.g. NAS and > > AAA server) offers also a solution component for Mobile IPv6 > > bootstrapping. This document describes various scenarios where a AAA > > interface for Mobile IPv6 is required. Additionally, it lists design > > goals and requirements for such an interface. > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt > > > > Regards, Julien and marcelo > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From dmj@index1.com Mon Jan 14 22:14:09 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEcFd-0003lB-32; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:14:09 -0500 Received: from 123-110-114-155.cy.dynamic.lsc.net.tw ([123.110.114.155] helo=peng-wvf2cws5qn.lsc.net.tw) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JEcFb-00063b-Ui; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:14:08 -0500 Received: from [123.110.114.155] by mail.index1.com; Tue, 14 Jan 2008 11:12:52 +0800 Message-ID: <01c8569e$67d14a90$9b726e7b@dmj> From: "Marcelo Boyd" To: Subject: Boss Army Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2008 11:12:52 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 No more worries, men! Medical professionals have endorsed the HerbalMaxx system to help men just like you achieve increased SIZE, LENGTH and WIDTH of their Manhood http://lodohydo90665.googlepages.com/index.html From BartonbarlowRosa@witnessfortheworld.org Wed Jan 16 13:03:39 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFCbx-0003dy-SC; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:03:38 -0500 Received: from 70-44-223-201.adsl.terra.cl ([201.223.44.70] helo=jenus1) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFCbx-00043f-7V; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:03:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host05378195.witnessfortheworld.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id Z8nUmxEk58.145632.6tq.I4f.5708629224027 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:02:41 +0400 Message-ID: <67cdb01c8586a$0f909390$462cdfc9@jenus1> From: "Lucio Britt" To: Subject: Your order Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:02:41 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_67CD7_01C8586A.0F909390" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_67CD7_01C8586A.0F909390 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_67CD7_01C8586A.0F909390 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_67CD7_01C8586A.0F909390-- From MargaritalaceBurrell@prisonplanet.com Wed Jan 16 16:42:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFG1N-00056P-GO; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:42:05 -0500 Received: from [201.230.30.95] (helo=computo) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFG1L-0002EI-5V; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:42:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host16525236.prisonplanet.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id cyx4cczi43.484193.3KS.lH4.9809143772705 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:41:40 +0500 Message-ID: <1c32b01c85888$a7425d40$0201a8c0@computo> From: "Hattie Bruno" To: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_1C327_01C85888.A7425D40-- From Kippennehxy@hess-bueroorganisation.de Thu Jan 17 01:52:57 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFOcS-0008Fp-Vg for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:52:57 -0500 Received: from host250-73-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.2.73.250]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFOcS-0003kS-7S for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:52:56 -0500 Received: from pino ([191.186.26.80]:18034 "EHLO pino" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by host250-73-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it with ESMTP id S22AJMQJGOULIQSH (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:53:22 +0100 Message-ID: <8E2B8E11.734B8FC3@hess-bueroorganisation.de> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:52:52 +0100 From: "Clifton Kippen" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: portent0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Chicks dig long dicks, don't miss out http://www.voleoyset.com/
From info@colorbits.net Thu Jan 17 07:31:39 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFTuE-0002Qi-CJ; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:31:38 -0500 Received: from [195.28.51.214] (helo=c214-51.ntt.ru) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFTuC-0004Em-Um; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:31:37 -0500 Received: from [195.28.51.214] by mail.colorbits.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2008 15:30:18 +0300 From: "Desiree Bartlett" To: Subject: Post-office Balloon Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2008 15:30:18 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Aca6QZOTG0MZM2FC0MYICTBDCZGJ6I== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2905 Message-ID: <01c85854$b2c7e100$d6331cc3@info> X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 STRONG and fast recovery for multiple repeat sessions! http://szaw.siofuuu.com From gbonill@acelynchburg.com Thu Jan 17 09:40:08 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFVua-0004Q3-81; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:40:08 -0500 Received: from aaih220.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.4.215.220] helo=komputer-bt7opp) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFVuZ-0002YK-7m; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:40:08 -0500 Received: from [83.4.215.220] by mail.acelynchburg.com; Thu, 16 Jan 2008 15:38:49 +0100 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2008 15:38:49 +0100 From: "Evangeline Russo" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.2) Personal Reply-To: gbonill@acelynchburg.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <251830542.42137062597337@acelynchburg.com> To: nat-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Post-office Toilet Satellite Gas MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed We sell only Hard to find medication s. Dont miss out on this huge savings http://bestosonline.com have the resources, contribute to depression things you can do often is sacrificed Atlanta, Georgia.that they're videos or older children the report says. "There is a part three mornings and 3-year-old Jennifer Gervasio From REMIGIOdakness@leuschen.biz Fri Jan 18 00:14:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFjYM-00005T-1S for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:14:06 -0500 Received: from arndalecourt.demon.co.uk ([80.176.234.29]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFjYL-0007TG-IH for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:14:05 -0500 Received: from DGTS5L1J ([112.105.115.63] helo=DGTS5L1J) by arndalecourt.demon.co.uk ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1fugny-000FJV-vr for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:14:35 -0000 Message-ID: <3E89C323.74A09F92@leuschen.biz> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:13:58 -0000 From: "REMIGIO dakness" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: atsimiu Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 2 servings a day for the next 3 months to a 9 inch dick! http://huteoiose.com/
From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 18 03:21:20 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFmTC-0006xr-MR; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:20:58 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFmTB-0006xZ-4n for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:20:57 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFmT8-00018m-MJ for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:20:57 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2008 08:20:52 -0000 Received: from proxy1-nsn.nsn-inter.net (EHLO [217.115.75.229]) [217.115.75.229] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 18 Jan 2008 09:20:52 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19yyedXk3Ny1YBMt4eTnENSVxM4iWs+51nU43S/62 Oa2oOcHsrB2qNa Message-ID: <47906163.4040607@gmx.net> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:20:51 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Giaretta, Gerardo" Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4166dd0e0c668adc975c3d3e0f1bce3b Cc: dime@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Gerardo, please find my comments inline: Giaretta, Gerardo wrote: > Hi Hannes, > > Thanks for the comments. Please see inline > >> A few minor comments below. >> >> >> FROM: >> >> The Home Agent can the assigned either in the Access Service >> Provider's network or in the seprate network. >> >> >> TO: >> >> The Home Agent can be assigned either in the Access Service >> Provider's network or in the separate network. >> >> >> > > Good catch, thanks. > > > >> G1.1 The AAAH server and the HA MUST be able to authenticate each >> other (mutual authentication) in order to prevent the >> > installation > >> of unauthorized state on the HA. >> In some deployment scenarios, it >> may not be feasible for HA and AAA server to mutually >> > authenticate > >> each other. In such a case, several AAA intermediate proxies >> could forward MIP6 bootstrapping information between HA and AAA. >> Thus, to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the >> > HA, > >> the path between HA and AAAH should be secure. >> >> [hannes] "should be secure" is a bit fuzzy. In essence you are >> > building > >> on the >> AAA model with a hop-by-hop security mechanisms. Maybe a better >> > wording > >> would be >> >> " >> Thus, to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the HA, >> the communication security mechanisms available with the AAA >> infrastructure >> MUST be used between adjacent AAA peers. >> " >> >> > > Good. I will change the text to the proposed one. Thanks > > >> I would fold requirement G1.2 and G1.3 into G1.1 since they are so >> > closely > >> related. >> >> > > What do you mean exactly? Are you suggesting to have a single > requirement? > I would write: G1.1 The communication between the AAAH server and the HA MUST reuse existing AAA security mechanisms with regard to authentication, replay, integrity, and confidentiality protection. These communication security mechanisms prevent a number of classical threats, including the alteration of exchanged data (e.g., Mobile IPv6 configuration parameters) and the installation of unauthorized state. Then, delete G1.2 and G1.3. >> >> G2.10 The AAAH server MUST be able to authorize the MN for Dual >> Stack operation [9]. >> >> What exactly does this mean? >> >> > > It means that a MN may be authorized to use MIPv6 as in RFC3775 or may > be authorized also to have an IPv4 HoA assigned for DSMIPv6. > > Maybe we should then write: G2.10 The AAAH server MUST be able to support different levels of Mobile IPv6 authorization. For example, the AAAH server may authorize the MN to use of MIPv6 (as defined in [RFC3775]) or may authorize the MN to utilize an IPv4 HoA assigned for Dual Stack MIPv6 [9]. >> G2.11 The AAAH server MUST be able to indicate to the HA whether >> > the > >> bearer traffic for the MN needs to receive IPsec ESP protection. >> >> I don't understand this either. >> >> > > The AAA may indicate if the MIPv6 tunnel should be an IP-in-IP tunnel or > an ESP tunnel. > Hmmm. I might have missed something but Mobile IP establishes IP-in-IP (or GRE tunnels) and not ESP tunnels. > >> G2.12 The HA MUST be able to authenticate the MN through the AAAH >> > in > >> case a pre-share key is used in IKEv2 for user authentication. >> The exact procedure is part of the solution space. >> >> >> Why do you list this requirement? I believe it is pretty much useless >> given >> that it is a consequence of the solution. I suggest to delete this >> requirement. >> >> > > I agree it is a consequence of the solution. However, I think it is good > to make it clear here as RFC 5026 provides text for PSK, EAP and > certificates. I don't think it is bad to have it. > > Then, I would write make it more explicitly. Just say that RFC 5026 supports different authentication mechanisms (PSK, EAP and certificates) and the solution specification MUST specify all variants. >> G4.1 The AAA-HA interface MUST allow the HA to act as a >> > pass-through > >> EAP authenticator. >> >> This is a consequence of the already established solution. I suggest >> > to > >> delete it. >> >> >> > > Same as above. > > >> G4.2 The AAA - HA interface SHOULD support authentication based on >> the Mobility Message Authentication Options defined in [5]. >> >> A solution must be specified in the specification but it's usage is >> optional. >> >> > > Can you clarify your comment please? > > I believe that this requirement refers to the usage rather than the functionality of the specification. Here, I would place a MUST since we have to specify it in the solution document. >> Section 5.4. about Mobile Node Authentication: >> >> G4.5 The HA MUST include the Mobile Node Identifier option [7] in >> the AAA transactions with the AAAH server. >> >> >> This requirement almost sounds like a solution description already. >> Isn't this a solution detail that does not need to be mentioned in >> > such > >> a document? >> >> > > Yes, you are probably right. The idea was that the HA MUST include an > identifier of the MN in the AAA transactions. > > A possible rewording could be > > "The HA MUST include an identifier of the mobile node in the AAA > transactions with the AAAH server" > > Would that work? Or are you suggesting removing completely the goal? > > That's fine. >> The same >> is true for requirement G4.7, which says: >> >> G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is not >> included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication >> Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is successful, >> the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the HA >> > if > >> the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH MUST >> send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA if >> the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. >> >> >> This paragraph sounds really complex. The first sentence is pretty >> > much > >> irrelevant for such a requirements document. Isn't the 2nd sentence >> covered >> by requirement in G4.3 already? >> >> > > I agree we can remove the first sentence. The second sentence is > different form G4.3, though: G4.3 is about the HA to request the keying > material while G4.7 is about the AAAH sending it. Would you prefer merge > the two goals? > > I would combine it since it is a requirement for requesting a keying material would (in my opinion) also imply that you have a way to receive it. >> G4.6 The AAAH server SHOULD be able to authenticate the MN >> identified by the value in the Mobile Node Identifier option >> > using > >> the value in MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option and >> > the > >> corresponding value of the SPI. >> >> >> Isn't requirement G4.6 already covered by the previous requirements? >> >> >> > > Yes, agree. I hope Kuntal is fine if we remove this goal. > > >> G6.2 The NAS SHOULD be able to notify the AAAH of the >> functionalities described in [4]. >> >> >> Couldn't we just list what it should notify the AAAH about? It isn't a >> > lot. > > > OK, suggested rewording: > > G6.2 The NAS MUST be able to notify the AAAH if it supports the AAA > extensions designed to receive the HA assignment information [4]. > > Sounds good. Ciao Hannes > Gerardo > > >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >> >> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> With this email we issue the WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals- >>> >> 00.txt >> >>> The WGLC will be open till the 31 of january. >>> We kindly ask the WG to review the document and provide comments. >>> >>> Please note that a valid comment at this stage is positive feedback >>> about the document being ready to be shipped. >>> So, please if you think the doc is ready, do express this to the ml >>> (or to the chairs) >>> >>> For you convenience, additional information about the document: >>> >>> >>> Title : AAA Goals for Mobile IPv6 >>> Author(s) : G. Giaretta, et al. >>> Filename : draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt >>> Pages : 12 >>> Date : 2007-12-27 >>> >>> In commercial and enterprise deployments Mobile IPv6 can be a >>> > service > >>> offered by a Mobility Services Provider (MSP). In this case all >>> protocol operations may need to be explicitly authorized and traced, >>> requiring the interaction between Mobile IPv6 and the AAA >>> infrastructure. Integrating the AAA infrastructure (e.g. NAS and >>> AAA server) offers also a solution component for Mobile IPv6 >>> bootstrapping. This document describes various scenarios where a >>> > AAA > >>> interface for Mobile IPv6 is required. Additionally, it lists >>> > design > >>> goals and requirements for such an interface. >>> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >>> >>> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt > >>> Regards, Julien and marcelo >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From MauricebatonRuiz@typeofundefined.com Fri Jan 18 09:23:55 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFs8Q-0003hs-Gh; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:23:54 -0500 Received: from host145-251-dynamic.3-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.3.251.145] helo=marrucci82c134.homenet.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFs8P-0004mx-Nx; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:23:54 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host97078179.typeofundefined.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 6n5pyo2O46.199217.77u.Te2.4518215912229 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:23:01 -0100 Message-ID: <129a901c859dd$ba66c180$ac01a8c0@marrucci82c134> From: "Vernon Andrews" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_129A5_01C859DD.BA66C180-- From SammieiceboxGolden@kotaku.com Fri Jan 18 13:04:48 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFvaC-0001B9-Fg; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:04:48 -0500 Received: from i07m-89-86-172-225.d4.club-internet.fr ([89.86.172.225] helo=nom929f1c76adc) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JFvaC-00052P-0L; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:04:48 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host48582359.kotaku.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id PIPqlUNL67.238565.Yge.Qt6.0158559028279 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:04:07 -0100 Message-ID: <589e01c859fc$9c65ff60$0201a8c0@nom929f1c76adc> From: "Thurman Henson" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_589A_01C859FC.9C65FF60-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 18 19:39:04 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JG1jY-0002BR-Fq; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:38:52 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JG1jW-0002BF-Qp; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:38:50 -0500 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JG1jU-0001aL-Dv; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:38:50 -0500 Received: from msgtransport02.qualcomm.com (msgtransport02.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m0J0chYb004434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:38:43 -0800 Received: from sanexcas01.na.qualcomm.com (sanexcas01.qualcomm.com [172.30.36.175]) by msgtransport02.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m0J0cg7a025719; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:38:42 -0800 Received: from NAEX12.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.246]) by sanexcas01.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:38:42 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:38:41 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <47906163.4040607@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt Thread-Index: AchZqxN7VmVaZgMEQRuwrkPfveYl3AAhupRw From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2008 00:38:42.0491 (UTC) FILETIME=[A43640B0:01C85A33] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 23336e92cd9b2f166f17126afcdd84ec Cc: dime@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Hannes, Please see inline > >> > >> FROM: > >> > >> The Home Agent can the assigned either in the Access Service > >> Provider's network or in the seprate network. > >> > >> > >> TO: > >> > >> The Home Agent can be assigned either in the Access Service > >> Provider's network or in the separate network. > >> > >> > >> > > > > Good catch, thanks. > > > > > > > >> G1.1 The AAAH server and the HA MUST be able to authenticate each > >> other (mutual authentication) in order to prevent the > >> > > installation > > > >> of unauthorized state on the HA. > >> In some deployment scenarios, it > >> may not be feasible for HA and AAA server to mutually > >> > > authenticate > > > >> each other. In such a case, several AAA intermediate proxies > >> could forward MIP6 bootstrapping information between HA and AAA. > >> Thus, to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the > >> > > HA, > > > >> the path between HA and AAAH should be secure. > >> > >> [hannes] "should be secure" is a bit fuzzy. In essence you are > >> > > building > > > >> on the > >> AAA model with a hop-by-hop security mechanisms. Maybe a better > >> > > wording > > > >> would be > >> > >> " > >> Thus, to prevent the installation of unauthorized state on the HA, > >> the communication security mechanisms available with the AAA > >> infrastructure > >> MUST be used between adjacent AAA peers. > >> " > >> > >> > > > > Good. I will change the text to the proposed one. Thanks > > > > > >> I would fold requirement G1.2 and G1.3 into G1.1 since they are so > >> > > closely > > > >> related. > >> > >> > > > > What do you mean exactly? Are you suggesting to have a single > > requirement? > > >=20 > I would write: >=20 >=20 > G1.1 The communication between the AAAH server and the HA > MUST reuse existing AAA security mechanisms with regard to > authentication, replay, integrity, and confidentiality protection. > These communication security mechanisms > prevent a number of classical threats, including the alteration > of exchanged data (e.g., Mobile IPv6 configuration parameters) > and the installation of unauthorized state. >=20 >=20 > Then, delete G1.2 and G1.3. > This is fine to me. I will change it. =20 >=20 > >> > >> G2.10 The AAAH server MUST be able to authorize the MN for Dual > >> Stack operation [9]. > >> > >> What exactly does this mean? > >> > >> > > > > It means that a MN may be authorized to use MIPv6 as in RFC3775 or may > > be authorized also to have an IPv4 HoA assigned for DSMIPv6. > > > > > Maybe we should then write: >=20 > G2.10 The AAAH server MUST be able to support different levels of > Mobile IPv6 authorization. For example, the AAAH server may > authorize the MN to use of MIPv6 (as defined in [RFC3775]) or may > authorize the MN to utilize an IPv4 HoA assigned for Dual Stack MIPv6 [9]. >=20 That's fine too.=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > >> G2.11 The AAAH server MUST be able to indicate to the HA whether > >> > > the > > > >> bearer traffic for the MN needs to receive IPsec ESP protection. > >> > >> I don't understand this either. > >> > >> > > > > The AAA may indicate if the MIPv6 tunnel should be an IP-in-IP tunnel or > > an ESP tunnel. > > > Hmmm. I might have missed something but Mobile IP establishes IP-in-IP > (or GRE tunnels) and not ESP tunnels. >=20 The HA and MN may configure a child SA to protect payload traffic. In this way the packets from HA to MN are protected using ESP.=20 >=20 > > > >> G2.12 The HA MUST be able to authenticate the MN through the AAAH > >> > > in > > > >> case a pre-share key is used in IKEv2 for user authentication. > >> The exact procedure is part of the solution space. > >> > >> > >> Why do you list this requirement? I believe it is pretty much useless > >> given > >> that it is a consequence of the solution. I suggest to delete this > >> requirement. > >> > >> > > > > I agree it is a consequence of the solution. However, I think it is good > > to make it clear here as RFC 5026 provides text for PSK, EAP and > > certificates. I don't think it is bad to have it. > > > > > Then, I would write make it more explicitly. Just say that RFC 5026 > supports different > authentication mechanisms (PSK, EAP and certificates) and the solution > specification MUST > specify all variants. >=20 This was suggested by Vijay. The point is that the HA may be able to fetch the PSK from the AAAH in case it does not have it. It's not only supporting PSK within IKEv2, rather contacting the AAAH to verify the PSK. > >> G4.1 The AAA-HA interface MUST allow the HA to act as a > >> > > pass-through > > > >> EAP authenticator. > >> > >> This is a consequence of the already established solution. I suggest > >> > > to > > > >> delete it. > >> > >> > >> > > > > Same as above. > > > > > >> G4.2 The AAA - HA interface SHOULD support authentication based on > >> the Mobility Message Authentication Options defined in [5]. > >> > >> A solution must be specified in the specification but it's usage is > >> optional. > >> > >> > > > > Can you clarify your comment please? > > > > > I believe that this requirement refers to the usage rather than the > functionality of the specification. > Here, I would place a MUST since we have to specify it in the solution > document. >=20 MUST is fine >=20 > >> Section 5.4. about Mobile Node Authentication: > >> > >> G4.5 The HA MUST include the Mobile Node Identifier option [7] in > >> the AAA transactions with the AAAH server. > >> > >> > >> This requirement almost sounds like a solution description already. > >> Isn't this a solution detail that does not need to be mentioned in > >> > > such > > > >> a document? > >> > >> > > > > Yes, you are probably right. The idea was that the HA MUST include an > > identifier of the MN in the AAA transactions. > > > > A possible rewording could be > > > > "The HA MUST include an identifier of the mobile node in the AAA > > transactions with the AAAH server" > > > > Would that work? Or are you suggesting removing completely the goal? > > > > > That's fine. >=20 > >> The same > >> is true for requirement G4.7, which says: > >> > >> G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is not > >> included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication > >> Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is successful, > >> the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the HA > >> > > if > > > >> the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH MUST > >> send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA if > >> the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. > >> > >> > >> This paragraph sounds really complex. The first sentence is pretty > >> > > much > > > >> irrelevant for such a requirements document. Isn't the 2nd sentence > >> covered > >> by requirement in G4.3 already? > >> > >> > > > > I agree we can remove the first sentence. The second sentence is > > different form G4.3, though: G4.3 is about the HA to request the keying > > material while G4.7 is about the AAAH sending it. Would you prefer merge > > the two goals? > > > > > I would combine it since it is a requirement for requesting a keying > material would (in my opinion) > also imply that you have a way to receive it. >=20 Can you please propose some text? I still don't fully understand the implications of the proposal.=20 >=20 > >> G4.6 The AAAH server SHOULD be able to authenticate the MN > >> identified by the value in the Mobile Node Identifier option > >> > > using > > > >> the value in MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option and > >> > > the > > > >> corresponding value of the SPI. > >> > >> > >> Isn't requirement G4.6 already covered by the previous requirements? > >> > >> > >> > > > > Yes, agree. I hope Kuntal is fine if we remove this goal. > > > > > >> G6.2 The NAS SHOULD be able to notify the AAAH of the > >> functionalities described in [4]. > >> > >> > >> Couldn't we just list what it should notify the AAAH about? It isn't a > >> > > lot. > > > > > > OK, suggested rewording: > > > > G6.2 The NAS MUST be able to notify the AAAH if it supports the AAA > > extensions designed to receive the HA assignment information [4]. > > > > > Sounds good. >=20 Thanks again for the review Gerardo > Ciao > Hannes >=20 > > Gerardo > > > > > >> Ciao > >> Hannes > >> > >> > >> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> With this email we issue the WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals- > >>> > >> 00.txt > >> > >>> The WGLC will be open till the 31 of january. > >>> We kindly ask the WG to review the document and provide comments. > >>> > >>> Please note that a valid comment at this stage is positive feedback > >>> about the document being ready to be shipped. > >>> So, please if you think the doc is ready, do express this to the ml > >>> (or to the chairs) > >>> > >>> For you convenience, additional information about the document: > >>> > >>> > >>> Title : AAA Goals for Mobile IPv6 > >>> Author(s) : G. Giaretta, et al. > >>> Filename : draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt > >>> Pages : 12 > >>> Date : 2007-12-27 > >>> > >>> In commercial and enterprise deployments Mobile IPv6 can be a > >>> > > service > > > >>> offered by a Mobility Services Provider (MSP). In this case all > >>> protocol operations may need to be explicitly authorized and traced, > >>> requiring the interaction between Mobile IPv6 and the AAA > >>> infrastructure. Integrating the AAA infrastructure (e.g. NAS and > >>> AAA server) offers also a solution component for Mobile IPv6 > >>> bootstrapping. This document describes various scenarios where a > >>> > > AAA > > > >>> interface for Mobile IPv6 is required. Additionally, it lists > >>> > > design > > > >>> goals and requirements for such an interface. > >>> > >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >>> > >>> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt > > > >>> Regards, Julien and marcelo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> MEXT mailing list > >>> MEXT@ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> MEXT mailing list > >> MEXT@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From jm.gossart@libertysurf.fr Fri Jan 18 21:56:50 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JG3t4-0000FU-6g for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:56:50 -0500 Received: from [69.51.147.37] (helo=fccq) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JG3t3-0005A4-QW for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:56:50 -0500 Received: from [107.52.51.207] (helo=bpsbt) by fccq with smtp (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) id 1JG4/d-0005bA-Cx; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:01:11 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01c85a46$f957cab0$cf33346b@bpsbt> From: To: Subject: Sending You My Love Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:57:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2578 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2578 X-Spam-Score: 4.9 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 You're In My Thoughts http://70.246.61.110/ From michel.edin@kochfamilyoffice.com Sat Jan 19 05:50:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGBH4-00081y-Rn; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:50:06 -0500 Received: from server.erta-consult.ru ([213.221.44.5]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGBH3-0005rh-Jl; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:50:06 -0500 Received: from [213.221.44.5] by mail.global.frontbridge.com; Sat, 18 Jan 2008 13:48:45 +0300 From: "Efren Waller" To: Subject: Coffee-shop Aeroplane Ears Tennis racquet Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2008 13:48:45 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Aca6QCQ0D1JUM3I12O1B11SCCYNIYZ== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Message-ID: <01c859d8$d83f1540$052cddd5@michel.edin> X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Look at our popular medication s. Dont miss out on this huge savings http://levelskin.com three mornings for your kids if youwho are free to come adjust to school settings, the the report says.and ballet for each because young who are free to come Gervasio said.Gervasio said her of me that Jennifer Gervasio From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jan 19 14:19:17 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGJDj-00014b-Q4; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:19:11 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGJDi-00014B-UU for mext@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:19:10 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGJDh-0005Mt-6B for mext@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:19:10 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2008 19:19:07 -0000 Received: from proxy4-nsn.nsn-inter.net (EHLO [217.115.75.232]) [217.115.75.232] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 19 Jan 2008 20:19:07 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18f/AFxRksf4B5v5DnVRXiE46kwivTrJ70QWLL3Vt bMQfnZdOGFe55L Message-ID: <47924D28.4020903@gmx.net> Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:19:04 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Giaretta, Gerardo" Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a0534e6179a1e260079328e8b03c7901 Cc: dime@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Gerardo, thanks for your quick response. Please find my comments inline: ~snip~ >> >> >>>> G2.11 The AAAH server MUST be able to indicate to the HA >>>> > whether > >>> the >>> >>> >>>> bearer traffic for the MN needs to receive IPsec ESP >>>> > protection. > >>>> I don't understand this either. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The AAA may indicate if the MIPv6 tunnel should be an IP-in-IP >>> > tunnel or > >>> an ESP tunnel. >>> >>> >> Hmmm. I might have missed something but Mobile IP establishes IP-in-IP >> (or GRE tunnels) and not ESP tunnels. >> >> > > The HA and MN may configure a child SA to protect payload traffic. In > this way the packets from HA to MN are protected using ESP. > > This is a somewhat new requirement for me and we have not addressed this aspect in our DIME documents. The additional issue with this requirement is that one needs to have a way to run an authorization exchange between the HA and the AAAS after the authentication. At the moment the authorization exchange and the authentication exchange happen at the same time. I will post a separate mail to the DIME list to see what implication this has with respect to the protocol design. >>>> G2.12 The HA MUST be able to authenticate the MN through the >>>> > AAAH > >>> in >>> >>> >>>> case a pre-share key is used in IKEv2 for user >>>> > authentication. > >>>> The exact procedure is part of the solution space. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why do you list this requirement? I believe it is pretty much >>>> > useless > >>>> given >>>> that it is a consequence of the solution. I suggest to delete this >>>> requirement. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I agree it is a consequence of the solution. However, I think it is >>> > good > >>> to make it clear here as RFC 5026 provides text for PSK, EAP and >>> certificates. I don't think it is bad to have it. >>> >>> >>> >> Then, I would write make it more explicitly. Just say that RFC 5026 >> supports different >> authentication mechanisms (PSK, EAP and certificates) and the solution >> specification MUST >> specify all variants. >> >> > > This was suggested by Vijay. The point is that the HA may be able to > fetch the PSK from the AAAH in case it does not have it. It's not only > supporting PSK within IKEv2, rather contacting the AAAH to verify the > PSK. > > The way how IKEv2 works would not allow PSK based authentication to be relayed to the AAA server. It does not work with legacy PSK credentials. Hence, the only reasonable way is to request the PSK from the AAAH. But this is fine with me. I don't see a contradiction between the requirements text I wrote and the one envisioned by Vijay. ~snip~ >>>> The same >>>> is true for requirement G4.7, which says: >>>> >>>> G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is >>>> > not > >>>> included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message >>>> > Authentication > >>>> Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is >>>> > successful, > >>>> the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the >>>> > HA > >>> if >>> >>> >>>> the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH >>>> > MUST > >>>> send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA >>>> > if > >>>> the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. >>>> >>>> >>>> This paragraph sounds really complex. The first sentence is pretty >>>> >>>> >>> much >>> >>> >>>> irrelevant for such a requirements document. Isn't the 2nd sentence >>>> covered >>>> by requirement in G4.3 already? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I agree we can remove the first sentence. The second sentence is >>> different form G4.3, though: G4.3 is about the HA to request the >>> > keying > >>> material while G4.7 is about the AAAH sending it. Would you prefer >>> > merge > >>> the two goals? >>> >>> >>> >> I would combine it since it is a requirement for requesting a keying >> material would (in my opinion) >> also imply that you have a way to receive it. >> >> > > Can you please propose some text? I still don't fully understand the > implications of the proposal. > > Here is G4.7 G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is not included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is successful, the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the HA if the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH MUST send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA if the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. Here is G4.3: G4.3 The HA SHOULD be able to request either the keying material to generate MN-HA key for MN-HA Mobility Message Authentication Option or SHOULD be able to request the MN-HA key and the related SPI values from the AAAH server. The new requirement as a replacement of the above 2: The AAAH MUST be able to provide a MN-HA key (or data used for subsequent key derivation of the MN-HA key by the HA) to the HA if requested. Additional data, such as the SPI or lifetime parameters, are sent along with the keying material. ~snip~ Ciao Hannes _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 20 04:33:26 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGWYE-00051l-HT; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:33:14 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGWYC-00051g-R4 for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:33:12 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGWYB-0001sg-V1 for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:33:12 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.137] (244.44.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.217.44.244])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB2F2BB73Dfor ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:33:10 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <51B8159A-08F6-4CFB-9FBD-E0187DBACC80@it.uc3m.es> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: marcelo bagnulo braun Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:33:11 +0100 To: mext@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-16.5115 TC:1F TRN:48 TV:5.0.1023(15678.003) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Subject: [MEXT] Fwd: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 71st IETF Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, USA X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, We have requested a couple of slots for mext for the next ietf and these are the deadlines for the IDs Regards, marcelo Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: ietf-secretariat@ietf.org > Fecha: 18 de enero de 2008 06:00:01 GMT+01:00 > Para: ietf-announce@ietf.org > Asunto: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 71st IETF > Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, USA > > > There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 71st > IETF Meeting in Philadelphia, PA, USA: > > February 18th: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00) > Internet-Draft Submissions > > All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday, > February 18th at 9:00 AM ET (14:00 UTC/GMT).The only exception is for > version -00 WG drafts that replace existing non-WG drafts. Such > drafts > may be submitted until the cutoff date for version -01 and higher > drafts. > As always, all initial submissions with a filename beginning with > "draft-ietf" must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they > can be processed or announced. The Secretariat would appreciate > receiving WG Chair approval by Monday, February 11th at 9:00 AM ET > (14:00 UTC/GMT). > > February (14:00 UTC/GMT): Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., version > -01 and higher) > Internet-Draft Submissions > > All revised Internet-Drafts (version -01 and higher) must be submitted > by Monday, February 25th at 9:00 AM ET (14:00 UTC/GMT). > > Initial and revised Internet-Drafts received after their respective > cutoff dates will not be made available in the Internet-Drafts > directory or announced until on or after Monday, March 10th at 9:00 > AM ET (13:00 UTC/GMT), when Internet-Draft posting resumes. Please > do not wait until > the last minute to submit. > > The Secretariat encourages you to submit your Internet-Drafts via the > Internet-Draft Submission Tool (IDST) https://datatracker.ietf.org/ > idst/upload.cgi. > If you are unable to do so, then you may still submit your Internet- > Drafts manually by sending them to internet-drafts@ietf.org. If you > are submitting a version -00 WG draft that replaces non-WG draft, then > you must submit it manually as the current IDST cannot handle > replacements. Please be sure to state that one draft replaces another > in the cover note that accompanies your submission. Also, please note > that the IDST will not accept drafts submitted after their respective > cutoff dates. > > Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any > questions or concerns, then please send a message to > internet-drafts@ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > FYI: The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant > dates > for the 71st IETF Meeting can be found at http://www.ietf.org/ > meetings/71-cutoff_dates.html. > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From Lennarth.Novack@eduranet.com Sun Jan 20 04:44:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGWik-0001HM-4J for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:44:06 -0500 Received: from [88.227.180.100] (helo=[88.227.180.100]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGWij-00022P-DR for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:44:06 -0500 Received: from c-716e48f9bbd54 ([173.158.143.194] helo=c-716e48f9bbd54) by [88.227.180.100] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1ymDZf-000JPO-sH for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:44:31 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:44:04 +0200 From: "Lennarth Novack" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: eglengte Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de My friends are amazed that my new dik is so thick and long even when
flaccid http://www.iegafbaf.com/
From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 20 13:20:33 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGemK-0000Nh-Jv; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:20:20 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGemJ-0000NT-Oc; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:20:19 -0500 Received: from p130.piuha.net ([2001:14b8:400::130] helo=smtp.piuha.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGemJ-0001Ve-9V; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:20:19 -0500 Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302FA198C5B; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:19:53 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C391E19866C; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:19:52 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <479390BC.2060406@piuha.net> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:19:40 +0200 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: heejin.jang@samsung.com, "draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt@tools.ietf.org" , "Bernie Volz (volz)" References: <2090145.427831194842500257.JavaMail.weblogic@epml09> In-Reply-To: <2090145.427831194842500257.JavaMail.weblogic@epml09> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Cc: Dhcwg , mext@ietf.org Subject: [MEXT] draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt situation X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Issues from my AD review have been addressed. I have also gone through the changes related to Bernie's review. The following issues appear insufficiently addressed: - Adding IANA rules on how new allocations can be made - Adding IANA instructions on id-type field - References regarding FQDN encoding are not all in place However, I have started IETF Last Call despite these issues. The tracker has RFC Editor notes fixing these (copied below). If the authors can update the draft in the next couple of days even during the last call, that would be helpful for reviewers. Jari Change in Section 3.1: OLD: This field MUST be set in the form of FQDN [RFC1035]. NEW: This field MUST be set in the form of FQDN, encoded as specified in Section 8 of [RFC3315]. Change in Section 3.3.1: OLD: A home network prefix, home agent IP address or home agent FQDN to be provided to a mobile node according to the sub-opt-code. NEW: A home network prefix, home agent IP address or home agent FQDN to be provided to a mobile node according to the sub-opt-code. These are encoded as specified in Section 3.2.1. Add the following text to the end of the IANA Considerations section: These Sub-option Codes should be placed in a new name space "DHCPv6 Mobile IPv6 Sub-option Codes" under the same registry. Future values can be allocated via Standards Action or IESG Approval. In addition, a new name space "Home Network Identifier Option id-type Values" should be created, again in the same registry. Values 0, 1, and 2 are assigned by this document as specified in Section 3.1. Future values can be allocated via Standards Action or IESG Approval. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 20 14:10:20 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGfYc-0006IE-8i; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:10:14 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGfYa-0006G7-SP for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:10:12 -0500 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGfYY-0002I0-1g for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:10:12 -0500 Received: from [163.117.203.42] (unknown [163.117.203.42])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id B157630D6FE;Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:05:55 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <498A4C43-8413-4F4C-A829-86C0D4BA2F9D@it.uc3m.es> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: marcelo bagnulo braun Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:02:45 +0100 To: Wesley Eddy , "William D. (GRC-RCN0) Ivancic" , Terry L Davis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-4.6491 TC:1F TRN:92 TV:5.0.1023(15680.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Scan-Signature: f6ef73100908d67495ce675c3fe8f472 Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: [MEXT] comments on draft-ietf-mext-aero-reqs-00 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, i have reviewed this document and i think it is in very good shape. The Requirements are clear and there is enough background information to understand why requirements are there (at least in most of the cases, see below) My main concern is that i am afraid that the 3 cases considered ATS, AOS and PIES are very different from each other. In particular, i think the impose very different requirements and that they have different underlying trust models, which will make solutions very different in the different scenarios (at least security wise) My main problem with the way the requirements are described, is that it seems that since the ATS case is more critical, the requiremetns for the ATS case are the MUST while the other cases are just desired features. The problem with that, is that the requirements for ATS are imposed to all the cases, so when designing a solution for PIES, we also would need to fullfill the requiremetns for ATS making the design of such a solution extremely hard imho. So, bottom line is that while i do agree that having a single solution for all the 3 cases would be great, i am skeptical that we will be abl to do so and i think that at least some modules, like security ones, will differ from the mechanisms for ATS and the one for PIES. So, i would like to propose that we actually divide the requirements in 2 or 3 lists, one for ATS (and maybe also for AOS) and another one for PIES, so we could design a different solution for ATS and for PIES. (this of course does not preclude the posibility of having a single solution for all the 3, but makes easier to understand imho to which scenario a given solutions fits better). (more comments about this below) In section 2.1. Aeronautical Communications Scenarios it is stated that: During en-route flight, handovers between VDL mode 2 channels may occur every 30 to 60 minutes, depending on the exact flight plan and layout of towers, cells, and sectors used by a service provider. What is the implication of changing between VDL mode 2 channels? does this means that a new CoA is acquired every 30 to 60 min during en- route flight? I think this should be clarified, since it is important to be able to translate into IP terms what the conditions mean imho Are there multiple links active during the flight or are the links sequentially available? I mean, would it be possible to use multiple different links simultaneously or just sequentially? Next the following paragraph states: The characteristics of a data flow between a CN and MNN varies both depending on the data flow's domain, and the particular application within the domain. Even within the three aeronautical domains described below, there are varying classes of service that are regulated differently, but this level of detail has been abstracted out for the purposes of this document. It is assumed that any viable NEMO RO solution will be able to support a granularity of configuration with many sub-classes of traffic within each of the specific domains listed here. It is hard for me to understand the point being made in this paragraph. What are the different constraints imposed to the different services? More precisely, what does the "support a granularity f configuration" means here? Does this refer to Des1 - Configuration? Bottom line, i think this paragraph as stated is confusing and it is hard to extract what is the conditions that are assumed, so it would be good either to include a pointer where this is described more clearly in the document, either to describe more clearly here either to remove it. Next in section 2.1.1. Air Traffic Services Domain it is stated that: These MNNs will mostly be Local Fixed Nodes (LFNs), with a few Local Mobile Nodes (LMNs) to support Electronic Flight Bags, for instance. According to the terminology document a LMN is Local Mobile Node (LMN) A mobile node (MN), either a host or a router which can move topologically with respect to the MR and whose home link belongs to the mobile network. It's address is taken from a NEMO-prefix. So, are you saying that there will be mobile nodes which Home Agent will be located within the aircraft? I don't have a problem with that, just that i find it strange... (FWIW i don't know what an Electronic Flight Bag is, so... what can you expect? :-) Later on, it is stated that: An MR used for ATS will be capable of using multiple data links (at least VHF-based, satellite, HF-based, and wired), and will likely be supported by a backup unit in the case of failure, leading to a case of a multi-homed MR that is at least multi-interfaced and possibly multi-prefixed as well, in NEMO terminology. So, there will be two MR for this, but they are never used simultaneously, since one is the backup of the other one, right? Can we assume that only one MR is on and the other one takes over only when the primary one is down? However, each router will do have multiple interfaces. What do you mean that the MR is multiprefixed? Does it mean that it has multiple MNPs? If yes, why do you say that? does it have multiple CoAs in the same interface? Later on, in this same section, it is stated that: Many of these may be aircraft-to-aircraft, but the majority of current exchanges are between the MNNs and a very small set of CNs within a control facility at any time due to the full transfer of control as a plane moves across sectors of airspace. A few questions about the CNs? You mention before that software updates can be performed at the MNN, is this also the case for the reduced set of CNS? i.e. would it be possible to update the CNs in this case? Furthermore, the CNs is a reduced set, would it possible to assume a pre-existing trust relationship between the nemo and all the potential CNs in this case? (for instance, that it would be possible to create a SA using that pre-existing trust relationship, like in the case of the MN and the HA). Same question for AOS CNs. Later on, in section 2.1.3. Passenger Services Domain it is stated that: The majority of these MNNs are VMNs and personal property brought onboard by passengers for the duration of a flight, I don't think these are VMNs actually. According to the nemo terminology document, VMN is Visiting Mobile Node (VMN) A mobile node (MN), either a host or a router which can move topologically with respect to the MR and whose home link doesn't belong to the mobile network. A VMN that gets temporarily attached to a NEMO-link (used as a foreign link) obtains an address on that link (i.e. taken from a NEMO-prefix). From that perspective, i think that most nodes attached to the aircraft network will be LFN. I mean, when i bring my laptop and i connect it to the aircraft network, i acquire a address using dhcp, my laptop is working as a LFN rather than as a VMN, since my laptop has no Home Address in any remote link. A VMN would be a node that wants to keep using its HoA located in a remote network and acquires a CoA from the MNP. While this is possible and i wouldn't rule it out, i think that the most common case today would be that the laptop and other devices of the passengers will act as LFN rather than VMN. From that perspective, i would guess that there will be LFN in the PIES network. So trying to understand the impact of the different type of traffic with the resulting required and desirable features in sections 3 and 4, i find the following texts relevant For AOS: For these reasons, in this document, we consider AOS data flow concerns with RO mechanisms to not be full requirements, but instead consider them under the desirable properties in Section 4. For PIES Due to the lack of criticality and the likelihood of being treated independently, in this document, PIES MNN concerns are not considered as input to requirements in Section 3. The RO solution should be optimized for ATS and AOS needs, and consider PIES as a secondary concern. So i understand from that that the requirements described in section 3 take only into account the needs of ATS while the Desirable features in section 4 take into account all the 3 type of traffic, namely, ATS, AOS, and PIES, would that be correct? I am kind on doubtful if this is the best way to put it. I mean, it seems clear to me at this stage that at least the ATS and the PIES are very different problems and that are likely to be completely different networks. The AOS lies somewhere in between and it does seem to have the same trust model than ATS but require similar reliability than PIES, so it may be possible that either a ATS solution or a PIES type of solutions can be used for ATS. However, I am certainly not sure whether it make sense to have a single set of requirements mixing all the requirements from ATS, AOS and PIES. I mean, it certainly would be good if a single solution (with maybe some different security tools and some extensions could be used for all 3 type of traffic. But i wonder if it wouldn't be useful to have 3 different sets of requirements (possible with some overlapping) one for each type of traffic. The nice thing of such requirements would be that they would be have an internal logic, since each of them would clearly respond to the logic of the particular type of traffic that is being considered. Finally, while i do understand that from the safety perspective the ATS is the most critical by far, from a standardization perspective, probably the PIES is the most challenging one, so i wouldn't want to discard it just yet. So, if we do a single requirement list, of course the ATS requirements are more important than the PIES requirements, but i wouldn't discard the PIES requiremetns as second class requirements. If we put this as 3 lists of requirements, one per type of traffic, then each category would have the requirements and the desirable features, responding to its own internal logic. Comments? With respect to Space Exploration scenarios, would it be ok to say that it is very similar to the ATS case? I mean, from the type of CNs and MNN, it seems to be very similar. There may be some specifics, like the asymmetry of data links and maybe the existence of nested nemos due to the PANs, but maybe if the similarities with the ATS case are important it would be valuable to state this up front and identify the differences, so that we could easily understand what would be the additional features that a ATS solution would need to provide support for this scenario, would that make sense? With respect to Req1- Separability, is it relevant who decides which traffic goes through which path? I means, is it the MR that needs to be able to enforce that or is it enough that the MR is able to suggest that, or could it be the MNN who decides which path to use? (Note that it may be ok that anyone decides, which seems to be what is described right now, just want to understand who is supposed to do this) With respect to Req2- Multihoming: - What do you mean by the nemo having multiple prefixes? Does this means that it has multiple MNPs? What do you want to support with the multiple MNPs? - What does the expression "in the MONAMI6 context" means? - Similarly, later on, the text talks about monami6 basic extensions, what does that means? I assume that means multiple CoAs and flow policy distribution, would that be it? What about fault tolerance would that be needed or not? I mean, neither MCOAS nor flow policy deals with fault tolerance, wouldn't this be needed? Wouldn't be important that in case a link goes down, the existnet communications that are being RO can be diverted to an alternative path? Wouldn't it be important that if there is a failure, all new communications can be RO using an alternative path? What about multiple HoAs? With respect to Req4- Availability The goal is clear, but i wonder if replicated elements should be placed in differnet geographical location, in order to support cases where a whole site crashes. With respect to Req6- Scalability I am not sure i understand this. I mean, AFAIU, these requirements are mostly for the ATS case. So, it is mostly a communication with the ground network. But i understand that there will be many grounds networks and that not all the 10000 aircrafts will be using the same ground network, i guess. So, i guess that we are not requiring that the system scale for all the aircrafts installing state in the same ground network. How many aircrafts do you think will be per ground network? (I do understand the 10000 figure for the routing case but not for the ground network) With respect to Req8 Security. I would like to include something more general here (in addition to what it is already there), something like RO solutions MUST NOT introduce any new vulnerability compared to the NEMO basic case. Moreover, i think we should also include something about the different networks here, i mean, that ATS, AOS and PIES cannot conflict to each other. In other words, if the same solution supports all the tree type of traffic, security issues may arise from the fact that the PIES traffic may interfere with the ATS traffic and so on. With respect to Des2 Nesting Maybe it would be good if you expalined a bit more what do you mean to support nesting. I mean, does it means that complete RO would be supported, meaning direct communication btween the CN and the first MR or that the RO of the root nemo still works for nested networks. Same w.r.t. to overhead. I mean, is the additional overhead of nesting (i.e. 2 tunnels) a big problem (as big as the panoramic routing) or less/more relevant? With respect to Des4 - VMN support As i mentioned before, i fail to understand the need for LMN, since this would require a HA located in the nemo, which seems strange to me (just to be clear, i am not arguing with this point, just wanting to make sure that we all understand the same thing by LMN) _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 20 16:46:07 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGhzA-0003lL-4t; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:45:48 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGhz8-0003l6-M1 for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:45:46 -0500 Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com ([216.82.253.51]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGhz7-0001kO-OK for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:45:46 -0500 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1200865544!4814829!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=.,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 8406 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2008 21:45:44 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-12.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2008 21:45:44 -0000 Received: from il06exr01.mot.com (il06exr01.mot.com [129.188.137.131]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id m0KLjdwM010452 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:45:44 -0700 (MST) Received: from il06vts02.mot.com (il06vts02.mot.com [129.188.137.142]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/Vontu) with SMTP id m0KLjc7l007685 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:45:39 -0600 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mvp-10-169-4-146.corp.mot.com [10.169.4.146]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m0KLjar1007679 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:45:37 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <4793C100.8080601@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:45:36 +0100 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090302000905030707000206" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080120-1, 20/01/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d9238570526f12788af3d33c67f37625 Subject: [MEXT] [Fwd: Re: [Mip6] [Re] AD review of mipshop-fh80216e] X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090302000905030707000206 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarded from the MIP6 mailing list... (MEXT WG discussion is now at mext@ietf.org). Alex ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ --------------090302000905030707000206 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: [Mip6] [Re] AD review of mipshop-fh80216e.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: [Mip6] [Re] AD review of mipshop-fh80216e.eml" Received: from az33exr02.mot.com ([10.64.251.232]) by zuk35exm62.ds.mot.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2709); Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:08:13 +0000 Received: from motgate4.mot.com (motgate4.mot.com [144.189.100.102]) by az33exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m0KH886G024278 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:08:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.131]) by motgate4.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with SMTP id m0KH87tb011845 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:08:07 -0700 (MST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu+caf_=alexandru.petrescu=motorola.com@gma il.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1200848885!14717020!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [209.85.128.184] X-SpamReason: No, hits=1.2 required=7.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP, SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID Received: (qmail 28442 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2008 17:08:05 -0000 Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.184) by server-14.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2008 17:08:05 -0000 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 26so1059996fkx.10 for ; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.105.13 with SMTP id d13mr10503176buc.30.1200848884877; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:08:04 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-To: alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com X-Forwarded-For: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com Delivered-To: alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com Received: by 10.82.175.7 with SMTP id x7cs263721bue; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.225.19 with SMTP id x19mr12589097ang.9.1200848877045; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:07:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from megatron.ietf.org (www1.ietf.ORG [156.154.16.145]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m30si9720692elf.17.2008.01.20.09.07.22; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:07:57 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mip6-bounces@ietf.org designates 156.154.16.145 as permitted sender) client-ip=156.154.16.145; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mip6-bounces@ietf.org designates 156.154.16.145 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mip6-bounces@ietf.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGdd7-0000Ef-Mc; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:06:45 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGdd6-000060-Gq for mip6@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:06:44 -0500 Received: from p130.piuha.net ([2001:14b8:400::130] helo=smtp.piuha.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGdd5-0000Ls-TH for mip6@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:06:44 -0500 Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3531A198C5C; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:06:18 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2B1198B85; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:06:17 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <47937F7D.1090502@piuha.net> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:06:05 +0200 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: [Mip6] [Re] AD review of mipshop-fh80216e References: <31694682.72701196474721587.JavaMail.weblogic@epml05> In-Reply-To: <31694682.72701196474721587.JavaMail.weblogic@epml05> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86 Cc: , , , X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mip6.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org Return-Path: alexandru.petrescu+caf_=alexandru.petrescu=motorola.com@gmail.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2008 17:08:14.0557 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B2250D0:01C85B87] X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080120-1, 20/01/2008), Inbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Heejin, >> I have done my AD review on this document. I have the following comments: >> >> 1. The document needs to be clearer about when FMIP procedures are >> needed upon link change, and when not. Section 5.2, for instance, says >> "On receiving the LHI, the IP layer sends an FBU to the PAR." But this >> appears to be necessary only if the FMIP operations (proxy router >> solications) indicate that a router and subnet change is implied by the >> access point change. Same in Section 5.3. >> >> > > Ok, I think that the unclearness results from omitting some descriptions about > MN's past and current status in the FMIPv6 procedures when the MN > receives primitives. We'll clearly mention it during the next > revision. > Ok, good. >> 2. The spec needs to document how it deals with the issues from RFC 4907 >> Section 2. >> > > Ok. We'll see RFC4907 and and describe in the draft how it will deal > those issues. > Ok. >> 3. Has there been review in 802.16, 802.21, Wimax Forum, or 16ng WGs? >> > > As Vijay answered, the draft has been reviewed by 16ng experts and > went through a Mipshop & 16ng joint WGLC. During 16ng review, a 16ng > chair made it reviewed by other SDO participants, IEEE 802.21 > (Yoshihiro Ohba), WiMax Forum (Jinhyeock Choi) (and also Netlmm WG > (Jonne Soininen)) . We also consult a 802.21 secretary (Xiaoyu Liu) to > be sure of the use of proper MIH primitives. > All good. > Do you think that the draft needs to be reviewed by SDOs more before Last call? > No, not before Last Call. >> 4. Can you confirm that 802.21 LD is given even for neighboring, scanned >> links? I.e., even if you still are on your current link, you will an LD >> if another cell is heard nearby? >> > > In my understanding, yes. Usually the wireless device such as WLAN > card can detect the neighboring links though it still on the current > link if the neighboring links are using same wireless technology. For > e.g., in IETF meeting, we can see multiple APs except the AP used > currently. > Ok. But I was not merely looking at what usually happens, the question was specifically about the 802.16e link layer (or 802.21 if it helps you here). Will it provide a Link Detected, even when you have NOT changed to that link yet? Text in Section 5.1, for instance, relies on this happening. > I'm not sure I got the point of this question . > > >> 5. What is "secure IP address management in 802.16e", mentioned in the >> security considerations? I am surprised to hear of this, as no mention >> of it has appeared in 16ng WG work. >> > > "Particularly, the 802.16e architecture supports a number of mandatory > authentication mechanisms, for example, EAP-TTLS, EAP-SIM and EAP-AKA, > as well as, secure IP address management between the MN and its > network entity." in the draft. > > This sentence means that 802.16e architecture (may) support the secure > IP address management between MN & AR (ASN-GW) which is described in > 5.3 (security) of WiMAX release 1.1.2 document. However, the sentence > is not clear and confusable because secure IP address management can > be supported in WiMAX system not in 802.16e. We will revise it this > sentence during the revision. > Ok. I'm OK with having network access authentication such as TTLS etc. But they do not normally provide any form of secure IP address management. There might be other functions (such as source address spoofing prevention tied to L2) that do this, however. Waiting for the revised sentence. Jari _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list Mip6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6 --------------090302000905030707000206 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --------------090302000905030707000206-- From AmyindecisionFriedman@topsynergy.com Sun Jan 20 18:25:15 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGjXO-0008NQ-Gv; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:25:14 -0500 Received: from [89.152.77.11] (helo=nome4cca87a7b4.netcabo.pt) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGjXN-0003hc-WA; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:25:14 -0500 Message-ID: <0faa01c85bbb$b15e2c10$6401a8c0@nome4cca87a7b4> From: "Debra Proctor" To: , =20
Your credit history = doesn't=20 matter to us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 require IMMEDIATE ready money to spend ANY way you like or wish Extra = money to=20 give your company a boost or want A low interest loan - NO STRINGS = ATTACHED,=20 here is best deal we can offer you THIS NIGHT (hurry, this offer will = expire=20 NOW):
=20
 
$20,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when best deal = is gone, it=20 is gone. Simply complete this quick form...
=20
 
Don't worry about = approval, your=20 credit history will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://grandplacei.com.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_0FA6_01C85BBB.B15E2C10-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 20 21:03:32 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGm0W-0007ay-De; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:03:28 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGm0V-0007ai-A6; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:03:27 -0500 Received: from mailout3.samsung.com ([203.254.224.33]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGm0T-0001PR-Bn; Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:03:27 -0500 Received: from ep_ms5_bk (mailout3.samsung.com [203.254.224.33]) by mailout3.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JUZ007SQ1MNTW@mailout3.samsung.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:01:35 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_spt03 (ms5.samsung.com [203.254.225.113]) by ms5.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JUZ00EZR1MMCK@ms5.samsung.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:01:35 +0900 (KST) Content-return: prohibited Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:01:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Heejin Jang To: Jari Arkko Message-id: <5943102.27161200880894725.JavaMail.weblogic@epml04> MIME-version: 1.0 MIME-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Msgkey: 20080121014834267@heejin.jang X-MTR: 20080121014834267@heejin.jang X-EPLocale: ko_KR.windows-1252 X-EPWebmail-Msg-Type: personal X-EPWebmail-Reply-Demand: 0 X-EPApproval-Locale: X-EPHeader: ML X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Cc: "draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt@tools.ietf.org" , "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" , "mext@ietf.org" , Dhcwg Subject: [MEXT] A new version of draft was posted (draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-10.txt) X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: heejin.jang@samsung.com List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1539729256==" Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org --===============1539729256== Content-return: prohibited Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 SGksIEphcmkuDQogDQpUaGUgaGlvcHQtZHJhZnQgd2FzIHJldmlzZWQgcmVmbGVjdGluZyAgdGhl IGJlbG93IGNvbW1lbnRzIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgYXMgZm9sbG93cy4NCmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtbWlwNi1oaW9wdC0xMC50eHQNCiANClRoYW5r cyBmb3IgeW91ciBlZmZvcnRzIGFuZCBraW5kIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24uIDopDQogDQotIEJlc3Qg UmVnYXJkcywgDQpIZWVqaW4uDQoNCi0tLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLS0tDQpT ZW5kZXIgOiBKYXJpIEFya2tvPGphcmkuYXJra29AcGl1aGEubmV0Pg0KRGF0ZSAgIDogMjAwOC0w MS0yMSAwMzoxOSAoR01UKzA5OjAwKQ0KVGl0bGUgIDogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1taXA2LWhpb3B0IHNp dHVhdGlvbg0KDQoNCklzc3VlcyBmcm9tIG15IEFEIHJldmlldyBoYXZlIGJlZW4gYWRkcmVzc2Vk LiBJIGhhdmUgYWxzbyBnb25lDQp0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBjaGFuZ2VzIHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gQmVybmll JiMzOTtzIHJldmlldy4gVGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBpc3N1ZXMNCmFwcGVhciBpbnN1ZmZpY2llbnRs eSBhZGRyZXNzZWQ6DQoNCi0gQWRkaW5nIElBTkEgcnVsZXMgb24gaG93IG5ldyBhbGxvY2F0aW9u cyBjYW4gYmUgbWFkZQ0KLSBBZGRpbmcgSUFOQSBpbnN0cnVjdGlvbnMgb24gaWQtdHlwZSBmaWVs ZA0KLSBSZWZlcmVuY2VzIHJlZ2FyZGluZyBGUUROIGVuY29kaW5nIGFyZSBub3QgYWxsIGluIHBs YWNlDQoNCkhvd2V2ZXIsIEkgaGF2ZSBzdGFydGVkIElFVEYgTGFzdCBDYWxsIGRlc3BpdGUgdGhl c2UgaXNzdWVzLiBUaGUNCnRyYWNrZXIgaGFzIFJGQyBFZGl0b3Igbm90ZXMgZml4aW5nIHRoZXNl IChjb3BpZWQgYmVsb3cpLiBJZiB0aGUNCmF1dGhvcnMgY2FuIHVwZGF0ZSB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaW4g dGhlIG5leHQgY291cGxlIG9mIGRheXMgZXZlbg0KZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBsYXN0IGNhbGwsIHRoYXQg d291bGQgYmUgaGVscGZ1bCBmb3IgcmV2aWV3ZXJzLg0KDQpKYXJpDQoNCiAgQ2hhbmdlIGluIFNl Y3Rpb24gMy4xOg0KICBPTEQ6DQogIFRoaXMgZmllbGQgTVVTVCBiZSBzZXQgaW4gdGhlIGZvcm0g b2YgRlFETiBbUkZDMTAzNV0uDQogIE5FVzoNCiAgVGhpcyBmaWVsZCBNVVNUIGJlIHNldCBpbiB0 aGUgZm9ybSBvZiBGUUROLCBlbmNvZGVkDQogIGFzIHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDggb2Yg W1JGQzMzMTVdLg0KDQogIENoYW5nZSBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDMuMy4xOg0KICBPTEQ6DQogICAgQSBo b21lIG5ldHdvcmsgcHJlZml4LCBob21lIGFnZW50IElQIGFkZHJlc3Mgb3IgaG9tZSBhZ2VudA0K ICAgIEZRRE4gdG8gYmUgcHJvdmlkZWQgdG8gYSBtb2JpbGUgbm9kZSBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gdGhl DQogICAgc3ViLW9wdC1jb2RlLg0KICBORVc6DQogICAgQSBob21lIG5ldHdvcmsgcHJlZml4LCBo b21lIGFnZW50IElQIGFkZHJlc3Mgb3IgaG9tZSBhZ2VudA0KICAgIEZRRE4gdG8gYmUgcHJvdmlk ZWQgdG8gYSBtb2JpbGUgbm9kZSBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gdGhlDQogICAgc3ViLW9wdC1jb2RlLiBU aGVzZSBhcmUgZW5jb2RlZCBhcyBzcGVjaWZpZWQgaW4gU2VjdGlvbg0KICAgIDMuMi4xLg0KDQog IEFkZCB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHRleHQgdG8gdGhlIGVuZCBvZiB0aGUgSUFOQSBDb25zaWRlcmF0 aW9ucw0KICBzZWN0aW9uOg0KICAgDQogICAgVGhlc2UgU3ViLW9wdGlvbiBDb2RlcyBzaG91bGQg YmUgcGxhY2VkIGluIGEgbmV3IG5hbWUNCiAgICBzcGFjZSAiREhDUHY2IE1vYmlsZSBJUHY2IFN1 Yi1vcHRpb24gQ29kZXMiIHVuZGVyIHRoZSBzYW1lDQogICAgcmVnaXN0cnkuIEZ1dHVyZSB2YWx1 ZXMgY2FuIGJlIGFsbG9jYXRlZCB2aWEgU3RhbmRhcmRzDQogICAgQWN0aW9uIG9yIElFU0cgQXBw cm92YWwuDQoNCiAgICBJbiBhZGRpdGlvbiwgYSBuZXcgbmFtZSBzcGFjZSAiSG9tZSBOZXR3b3Jr IElkZW50aWZpZXINCiAgICBPcHRpb24gaWQtdHlwZSBWYWx1ZXMiIHNob3VsZCBiZSBjcmVhdGVk LCBhZ2FpbiBpbiB0aGUNCiAgICBzYW1lIHJlZ2lzdHJ5LiBWYWx1ZXMgMCwgMSwgYW5kIDIgYXJl IGFzc2lnbmVkIGJ5IHRoaXMNCiAgICBkb2N1bWVudCBhcyBzcGVjaWZpZWQgaW4gU2VjdGlvbiAz LjEuIEZ1dHVyZSB2YWx1ZXMgY2FuDQogICAgYmUgYWxsb2NhdGVkIHZpYSBTdGFuZGFyZHMgQWN0 aW9uIG9yIElFU0cgQXBwcm92YWwuDQo= --===============1539729256== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --===============1539729256==-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 03:54:53 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGsQR-0008QD-H2; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:54:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGsQP-0008Gd-Mr for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:54:37 -0500 Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.40]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGsQP-0007U3-A8 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:54:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (atlas1.office [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D04928000357; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:54:36 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office) Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SIVSpCGG1JoS; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:54:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.office (mx1.office [10.1.1.23]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8454F28000350; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:54:26 +0100 (CET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting web site Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:54:25 +0100 Message-ID: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF44E817@mx1.office> In-Reply-To: <9084907E-E066-4C96-9191-2A0EDF6FFFD0@it.uc3m.es> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting web site Thread-Index: AchUf7ykDSjcHTzjThKY+pfQWIElegHiz+aQ From: "Roberto Baldessari" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Dear Marcelo, I will be attending the meeting and give an update about the automotive = requirements draft (to be submitted for next IETF). I hope we can boost = the discussion on requirements. Best regards, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es]=20 > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 7:26 PM > To: mext@ietf.org > Subject: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting web site >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We have setup a web site for the interim meeting where you=20 > can find the accommodation information. > In addition, if you are coming to the meeting, we kindly ask=20 > you to register through the web site, so we can properly=20 > setup the venue, room, coffee and so on. >=20 > The web site is: >=20 > http://enjambre.it.uc3m.es/mext/ >=20 > We will be shortly announcing the agenda for the meeting >=20 > Regards, marcelo >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >=20 _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 10:40:33 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGyl3-00021K-7i; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:40:21 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGyl2-00021D-6C for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:40:20 -0500 Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.96.56]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JGyl1-0003DG-KE for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:40:20 -0500 Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m0LFeINg026213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:40:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m0LFeIRD021626; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:40:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m0LFeEMm021474; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:40:17 -0600 (CST) Received: from XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.55.69]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:40:15 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C85C43.EAA6451C" Subject: RE: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting web site Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:40:14 -0800 Message-ID: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537BFDC@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF44E817@mx1.office> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting web site Thread-Index: AchUf7ykDSjcHTzjThKY+pfQWIElegHiz+aQAA4cuMA= References: <9084907E-E066-4C96-9191-2A0EDF6FFFD0@it.uc3m.es> <5F6519BF2DE0404D99B7C75607FF76FF44E817@mx1.office> From: "Davis, Terry L" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2008 15:40:15.0502 (UTC) FILETIME=[EAFC32E0:01C85C43] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7c1a129dc3801d79d40c5ca8dee767eb Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C85C43.EAA6451C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marcelo I happened to be in my archive files this morning and found the attached document on aviation requirements that I submitted to the IETF in October 1999. It's just interesting how long we have actually been working this; I believe our first air to ground IP communication tests were done in 96 or 97. Take care Terry > -----Original Message----- > From: Roberto Baldessari [mailto:Roberto.Baldessari@nw.neclab.eu] > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 12:54 AM > To: marcelo bagnulo braun; mext@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting web site >=20 > Dear Marcelo, >=20 > I will be attending the meeting and give an update about the automotive > requirements draft (to be submitted for next IETF). I hope we can boost > the discussion on requirements. >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Roberto >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 7:26 PM > > To: mext@ietf.org > > Subject: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting web site > > > > Hi, > > > > We have setup a web site for the interim meeting where you > > can find the accommodation information. > > In addition, if you are coming to the meeting, we kindly ask > > you to register through the web site, so we can properly > > setup the venue, room, coffee and so on. > > > > The web site is: > > > > http://enjambre.it.uc3m.es/mext/ > > > > We will be shortly announcing the agenda for the meeting > > > > Regards, marcelo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext ------_=_NextPart_001_01C85C43.EAA6451C Content-Type: application/msword; name="Mobile_LAN.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: Mobile_LAN.doc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Mobile_LAN.doc" 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAA EAAAEgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAABEAAAD///////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////c pWgAY+AJBAAAAABlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwAATg8AAFsVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATgwAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQAAGoAAAAAFAAAagAAAGoUAAAAAAAAahQA AAAAAABqFAAAAAAAAGoUAAAAAAAAahQAABQAAAB+FAAAAAAAAH4UAAAAAAAAfhQAAAAAAAB+FAAA AAAAAH4UAAAAAAAAfhQAAAoAAACIFAAACgAAAH4UAAAAAAAAlBQAADEAAACSFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAA AAAAkhQAAAAAAACSFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAkhQAAAAAAACSFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAkhQAAAIA AACUFAAAAAAAAJQUAAAAAAAAlBQAAAAAAACUFAAAAAAAAJQUAAAAAAAAlBQAAAAAAADFFAAAWAAA AB0VAAA+AAAAlBQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAahQAAAAAAACSFAAAAAAAAAAACAAJAAEA AQCSFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAkhQAAAAAAACUFAAAAAAA AJIUAAAAAAAAahQAAAAAAABqFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAA khQAAAAAAACSFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAkhQAAAAAAABqFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAahQAAAAAAACS FAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQZKaCVg+/AX4UAAAAAAAAfhQAAAAAAABqFAAAAAAAAGoU AAAAAAAAahQAAAAAAABqFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAkhQAAAAAAACSFAAAAAAAAJIUAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiTW9iaWxlIExBTidzIg0NQm9laW5nIGlzIHJlc2Vh cmNoaW5nIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtcyBpbmhlcmVudCBpbiB0cnVlIGZ1bGx5ICJtb2JpbGUgTEFOJ3Mi IGZvciBib3RoIHBvdGVudGlhbCBjb21tZXJjaWFsIGFuZCBtaWxpdGFyeSB1c2FnZS4gICBBZnRl ciBvdXIgaW5pdGlhbCByZXNlYXJjaCBhbmQgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgd2l0aCBzZXZlcmFsIGluZHVz dHJ5IGV4cGVydHMgYW5kIElFVEYgSUFCL0lFU0cgbWVtYmVycywgQm9laW5nIGJlbGlldmVzIHRo ZXJlIGFyZSBzaWduaWZpY2FudCBnYXBzIGluIHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbHMgYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIGFs bG93IGZ1bGwgZGVwbG95bWVudCBvZiBJbnRlcm5ldCBjYXBhYmlsaXRpZXMgdG8gYSAibW9iaWxl IExBTidzIi4gIEluIHN1cHBvcnQgb2YgdGhpcyByZXNlYXJjaCBlZmZvcnQsIEJvZWluZyBhc2tz IHRoZSBJRVRGIEludGVybmV0IEFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBCb2FyZCB0byBjb25zaWRlciB0aGUgcHJv YmxlbSBzcGFjZSBkZWZpbmVkIGluIGZvbGxvd2luZyBwYXJhZ3JhcGhzIGFuZCBhZHZpc2UgdXMg aWYgdGhleSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBleGlzdGluZyBzb2x1dGlvbnMgdG8gb3VyIHByb2Js ZW0uDQ1JbiB0aGUgZnV0dXJlIGZvciBjb21tZXJjaWFsIGF2aWF0aW9uLCBCb2VpbmcgZW52aXNp b25zIDUgdG8gMTAgc2VwYXJhdGUgTEFOcyBvbiBhIGNvbW1lcmNpYWwgYWlyY3JhZnQuICAgVGhl c2UgY291bGQgaW5jbHVkZSBzdWNoIHVzZXMgYXMgInBhc3NlbmdlciBJbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3Mi LCBJUCBwaG9uZSwgYWlybGluZS9vcGVyYXRvciBhZG1pbmlzdHJhdGlvbiwgYWlybGluZS9vcGVy YXRvciBtYWludGVuYW5jZSwgYW5kIHJlZ2lvbmFsIGFpciB0cmFmZmljIGNvbnRyb2wuIFRoZSBs aW5rcyB3aWxsIGJlIGV4dHJlbWVseSBtaXhlZCBhbHNvIHdpdGggc2F0ZWxsaXRlIGNvbW11bmlj YXRpb24sIGdyb3VuZCBzdGF0aW9uLCBhbmQgaGFyZHdpcmVkIHRlcm1pbmFsIGxpbmtzIGFsbCBh bnRpY2lwYXRlZCBhcyBwYXJ0IG9mIGV2ZXJ5IGZsaWdodC4gRGVwZW5kaW5nIG9uIGhvdyB0aGUg c2F0ZWxsaXRlIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gYW5kIGdyb3VuZCBzdGF0aW9uIGxpbmtzIHdlcmUgZGVw bG95ZWQsIGFuIGFpcmNyYWZ0IHdvdWxkIGNvbmNlaXZhYmx5IGJlIGNvbW11bmljYXRpbmcgd2l0 aCBhbnl3aGVyZSBmcm9tIGEgaGFsZiBkb3plbiBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcm91dGVycyB0byA1MCBvciBt b3JlIGZvciBhIHNpbmdsZSBmbGlnaHQuICBBbG1vc3QgY2VydGFpbmx5IHNvbWUgYWlyZnJhbWVz IHdvdWxkIGJlIGNvbm5lY3RlZCB0byB1cHdhcmRzIG9mIDEwMCBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcm91dGVycyBw ZXIgZGF5LiAgQ3VycmVudGx5IEJvZWluZyBrbm93cyBvZiBubyBwcm90b2NvbHMgY2FwYWJsZSBv ZiBoYW5kbGluZyBuZXR3b3JrcyB0aGF0IGFyZSByZWNvbnZlcmdpbmcgZXZlcnkgZmV3IG1pbnV0 ZXMgYXMgdGhlIGdyb3VuZCBzdGF0aW9uIG9yIHNhdGVsbGl0ZSByb3V0aW5nIGNoYW5nZXMgYXMg YW4gYWlyZnJhbWUgd291bGQgYmUuICBSZWNvbnZlcmdlbmNlIGluIHRoZSBjYXNlIG9mIGEgdHJh aW4gb3Igc2hpcCB3b3VsZCBiZSBtdWNoIGxlc3MsIHByb2JhYmx5IG9uY2Ugb3Igc28gYW4gaG91 ci4NDUFkZGl0aW9uYWxseSBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIGlzIGFsc28gcHJvYmxlbWF0aWMuICBBbiBpbmRp dmlkdWFsIHBsYW5lIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgc29tZXRoaW5nIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlIG51bWJlciBzZWF0 cyBhbmQgdGhyZWUgdGltZXMgdGhhdCBudW1iZXIgb2YgSVAgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGRlcGVuZGluZyBv biBob3cgdGhlIElQIHBob25lLCBJbnRlcm5ldCBhY2Nlc3MsIGFuZCBlbnRlcnRhaW5tZW50IGFy ZSBkZXNpZ25lZC4gIFRodXMgYSA3NDcgc2VyaWVzIGFpcmNyYWZ0IHdpdGggNTAwIHNlYXRzIGNv dWxkIGhhdmUgZnJvbSA1MDAgdG8gb3ZlciAxNTAwIElQIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBhc3NpZ25lZCB0byBp dCBkZXBlbmRpbmcgb24gaG93IGludGVydmVuaW5nIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyBhbmQgZGVwbG95bWVu dHMgb2NjdXIuICBXaXRoIHNvbWV0aGluZyBleGNlZWRpbmcgMTAsMDAwIG1vdmluZyBodWxscyB3 b3JsZHdpZGUgKHBsYW5lcy90cmFpbnMvc2hpcHMpIGFkbWluaXN0cmF0aXZlIGlzc3VlcyBhc3Nv Y2lhdGVkIHdpdGggdGhlIGNvb3JkaW5hdGlvbiBhZGRyZXNzIHRhYmxlIHVwZGF0ZXMsIHRhYmxl IHByb3BhZ2F0aW9uLCBhbmQgYWRkcmVzcyBjb2xsaXNpb25zIGVsaW1pbmF0ZSBOQVQgYW5kIENJ RFIgYmxvY2tzIGFzIGFkZHJlc3Npbmcgb3B0aW9ucy4gIFRodXMgdGhlcmUgaXMgYWxzbyBhIG5l ZWQgdG8gdW5kZXJzdGFuZCBob3cgYWRkcmVzc2luZyB3b3VsZCBiZSBoYW5kbGVkIGZvciAibW9i aWxlIExBTidzIi4NDUJvZWluZyBhbHNvIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nICJtb2JpbGUg SVAiIHByb3RvY29scyBidXQgdGhlc2UgYXJlIGluYWRlcXVhdGUgZm9yIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIHNw YWNlIHdlIGFyZSByZXNlYXJjaGluZy4gIEhvd2V2ZXIgdGhleSBkbyBhcHBlYXIgYWRlcXVhdGUg dG8gYWRkcmVzcyB2ZWhpY2xlcyBzdWNoIGFzIGF1dG8ncyB3aGljaCByZXF1aXJlIG9ubHkgYSBo YW5kZnVsIG9mIElQJ3MuDQxCb2VpbmcgaXMgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiBhZHZpc2UgYW5kIGZlZWRi YWNrIGZyb20gdGhlIEludGVybmV0IEFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZSBCb2FyZCBvbiB0aGlzIHByb2JsZW0g c3BhY2UuICBTaG91bGQgdGhlIElBQi9JRVNHIGZlZWwgdGhlIHRvcGljIHdhcnJhbnRzIGEgYmly ZHMtb2YtZmVhdGhlciBzZXNzaW9uIG9uIHRoaXMgdG9waWMgYXQgYW4gSUVURiBtZWV0aW5nLCBC b2Vpbmcgd291bGQgYmUgd2lsbGluZyB0byBsZWFkIG9yIGNvLWxlYWQgYSBCT0YuICBCb2Vpbmcg d291bGQgYWxzbyBhY3RpdmVseSBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0ZSBpbiBhIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgb24gdGhl ICJtb2JpbGUgTEFOIiBwcm9ibGVtIHNwYWNlIHNob3VsZCBpdCBiZSBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIGFwcHJv cHJpYXRlIHRvIGZvcm0gb25lLg0NVGVycnkgTC4gRGF2aXMsIFAuRS4NQXNzb2NpYXRlIFRlY2hu aWNhbCBGZWxsb3cNT3BlcmF0aW9ucyBFbmdpbmVlcmluZw1Cb2VpbmcgU2hhcmVkIFNlcnZpY2Vz IEdyb3VwDUJlbGxldnVlLCBXYXNoaW5ndG9uDTQyNS05NTctNTMyNQ0aAKEBAJcApNAvpeA9pggH pwgHqKAFqaAFqgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMAAA8DAADH DgAATQ8AAE4PAABqDwAA+/j0APIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJ1AQAHVYFWgWMYAAViAmMYAAdVgWICYxwAAAUAAwAADwMAABAD AABdBQAAXgUAAF4JAABfCQAATAwAAE0MAAA0DQAAxw4AAMgOAADdDgAA+A4AAA8PAAAsDwAAQQ8A AE4PAAD9AAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAA+wAA AAAAAPsAAAAAAAD7AAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAAAAAA/QAAAAAAAP0AAAAAAAD9AAAA AAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAIAAAUBEQ4ADwAIAAEASwAP AAAAAAAaAABA8f8CABoABk5vcm1hbAACAAAAAwBhCQQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIgBBQPL/ oQAiABZEZWZhdWx0IFBhcmFncmFwaCBGb250AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATgwAAAMATg8AAAEA//// /wADAABqDwAACAAAAwAATg8AAAkA/0AxABUSkAEAAFRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbgAMEJABAgBTeW1i b2wACyKQAQAAQXJpYWwAIgAEAAAAgBgAANACAABoAQAAAACvIjommCo6RgAAAAABAAAAAADHAQAA JQoAAAEABQAAAAQAgxAVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD4AAAAOIk1vYmls ZSBMQU4ncyIAAAAOVGVycnkgTC4gRGF2aXMOVGVycnkgTC4gRGF2aXMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAIAAAADAAAA BAAAAAUAAAAGAAAABwAAAAgAAAAJAAAACgAAAP7////9////DwAAAP7///8XAAAA/v////////// ///////////////////////////////+//////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////9SAG8AbwB0ACAARQBu AHQAcgB5AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFwARQAAAAAAmAMUAJgDFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFgAFAf// ////////AQAAAAAJAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAAAAAAHsAlwAQZKaCVg+/AQ4AAABAAwAAAAAA AFcAbwByAGQARABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAaAAIBAgAAAAMAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAFsVAAAAAAAAAQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAagAAAAAAAAAFAFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkASQBuAGYAbwByAG0A YQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAACAf////8EAAAA/////wAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAC8AQAAAAAAAAEAAAD+////AwAAAAQA AAAFAAAABgAAAAcAAAAIAAAA/v///woAAAALAAAADAAAAP7///////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////AQD+/wMKAAD/////AAkC AAAAAADAAAAAAAAARhgAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29yZCBEb2N1bWVudAAKAAAATVNXb3JkRG9jABAA AABXb3JkLkRvY3VtZW50LjYA9DmycQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD+ /wAABAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA4IWf8vlPaBCrkQgAKyez2TAAAACMAQAAEQAAAAEA AACQAAAAAgAAAJgAAAADAAAAsAAAAAQAAAC8AAAABQAAANQAAAAGAAAA4AAAAAcAAADsAAAACAAA APwAAAAJAAAAFAEAABIAAAAgAQAACgAAAEgBAAAMAAAAVAEAAA0AAABgAQAADgAAAGwBAAAPAAAA dAEAABAAAAB8AQAAEwAAAIQBAAACAAAA5AQAAB4AAAAPAAAAIk1vYmlsZSBMQU4ncyIAAB4AAAAB AAAAAAAUAB4AAAAPAAAAVGVycnkgTC4gRGF2aXMAAB4AAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AAAABAAAAAAAAAB4A AAAHAAAATm9ybWFsAAAeAAAADwAAAFRlcnJ5IEwuIERhdmlzAGYeAAAAAgAAADEAFAAeAAAAHgAA AE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIGZvciBXaW5kb3dzIDk1AHAAQAAAAAAAAAAFAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4A dABTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8AbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAACAP////// /////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkAAADoAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFIAbwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdABy AHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAXABFAAAAAACYAxQAmAMUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAUB//////// //8BAAAAAAkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAAAAAAewCXAPCfIOpDXMgBDgAAAEAFAAAAAAAAVwBv AHIAZABEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAABoAAgECAAAAAwAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAWxUAAAAAAAABAEMAbwBtAHAATwBiAGoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEgACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABqAAAAAAAAAAUAUwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQA aQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAIB/////wQAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAALwBAAAAAAAAAQAAAAIAAAADAAAABAAAAAUA AAAGAAAABwAAAAgAAAAJAAAACgAAAP7///////////////////8VAAAA/////xQAAAD9/////v// //7////+////EwAAAP////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////8BAAAA/v///wMAAAAEAAAABQAA AAYAAAAHAAAACAAAAP7///8KAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAA FAAAAP7///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////3QAAAAFAAAADQAAAF8AQQB1AHQA aABvAHIARQBtAGEAaQBsAAAAAAAGAAAAGAAAAF8AQQB1AHQAaABvAHIARQBtAGEAaQBsAEQAaQBz AHAAbABhAHkATgBhAG0AZQAAAAIAAACwBAAAEwAAAAkEAAADAAAA17sY2R8AAAABAAAAAAAAAB8A AAAlAAAAWwBNAEUAWABUAF0AIABNAEUAWABUACAAaQBuAHQAZQByAGkAbQAgAG0AZQBlAHQAaQBu AGcAIAB3AGUAYgAgAHMAaQB0AGUAAAAAAB8AAAAZAAAAdABlAHIAcgB5AC4AbAAuAGQAYQB2AGkA cwBAAGIAbwBlAGkAbgBnAC4AYwBvAG0AAAAAAB8AAAAPAAAARABhAHYAaQBzACwAIABUAGUAcgBy AHkAIABMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQBEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAUwB1 AG0AbQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAgD///////////// //8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJAAAA/AIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAABCjnWQDr8BQAAAAAC4 bGlWD78BAwAAAAEAAAADAAAAxwEAAAMAAAAlCgAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAQAAgAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAALVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a5EAAAABdXN1ZwuGxCTlwgAKyz5rvwAAAC4AAAA BwAAAAEAAABAAAAADwAAAEgAAAAFAAAAcAAAAAYAAAB4AAAACwAAAIAAAAAQAAAAiAAAAAwAAACQ AAAAAgAAAOQEAAAeAAAAHQAAAFNlY3VyaXR5IFN5c3RlbXMgSW50ZWdyYXRpb24AAAAAAwAAABUA AAADAAAABQAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAAMEAAAAgAAAB4AAAAPAAAAIk1vYmlsZSBMQU4ncyIA AwAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAgAAAAAAAAASAAAAAEAAAAkAQAAAAAAgCwBAAACAAAANAEAAAMAAAA8AQAA BAAAAEgBAAAFAAAAnAEAAAYAAADYAQAABQAAAAIAAAAUAAAAXwBBAGQASABvAGMAUgBlAHYAaQBl AHcAQwB5AGMAbABlAEkARAAAAAMAAAAQAAAAXwBOAGUAdwBSAGUAdgBpAGUAdwBDAHkAYwBsAGUA AAAEAAAADgAAAF8ARQBtAGEAaQBsAFMAdQBiAGoAZQBjAA== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C85C43.EAA6451C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext ------_=_NextPart_001_01C85C43.EAA6451C-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:10:21 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH162-0007ue-KG; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:10:10 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH161-0007uQ-Uf for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:10:09 -0500 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH160-0007KU-EC for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:10:09 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8787431441Dfor ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:09:12 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:09:11 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-7.0541 TC:1F TRN:22 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi folks, Following the procedure we described for the rechartering process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. After that, we will ask you to provide us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we had during this whole process, we will decide which items to propose to the AD to include in our charter. It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on these elements. In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the discussion of each item clearly. Regards, Julien and marcelo _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:10:44 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH16a-0000Kk-2H; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:10:44 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH16Y-0000J5-H1 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:10:42 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH16W-0007Lp-Au for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:10:42 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F8F2CA8A8for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:10:39 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <94D45957-880A-46A3-AE2D-F7B608FDEA3C@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:10:38 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-7.4646 TC:1F TRN:8 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] Binding Revocation for IP Mobility X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: Define a binding revocation mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. This mechanism can be used by any entity involved in the base Mobile IPv6 protocol or one of its extensions to request its corresponding entity to terminate either one, multiple or all binding cache entries. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:11:16 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH174-0001Cr-Qx; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:11:14 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH173-0001Cc-L9 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:11:13 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH173-0007Nf-Ca for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:11:13 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47D12CA942for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:11:12 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <959F50FC-1688-408C-8711-647A2A608DF4@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:11:12 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-6.1644 TC:1F TRN:10 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] MIPv6 home link operation in various SDOs X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Many SDOs are considering the use of point-to-point links between the mobile node and the home agent as a home link for Mobile IPv6 to avoid the tunneling overhead. Some of these point-to-point links do not support running neighbor discovery. Attaching to the home link and returning to the home procedures need to be analyzed for these point- to-point links, possible with the use of binding update and binding acknowledgment messages. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:11:39 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH17S-0001SU-JX; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:11:38 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH17R-0001SH-H8 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:11:37 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH17R-0007Ob-8e for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:11:37 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88292CA615for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:11:36 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:11:36 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-9.9970 TC:1F TRN:15 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] IP Tunneling Optimization in a Mobile Environment X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org IP Tunneling Optimization in a Mobile Environment The widespread use of different forms of IP tunneling mechanisms in mobile environment, e.g., MIPv6, HMIPv6, PMIPv6, has a negative impact on the protocol efficiency which is translated in the data packet size, bandwidth usage and battery power consumption. Therefore, a mechanism which enables removing the extra header would benefit the mobile node and optimize the bandwidth usage. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:12:10 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH17y-0002VU-5U; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:10 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH17x-0002VH-Fe for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:09 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH17x-0007Pu-6j for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:09 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F632CAFC8for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:08 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <72330267-2212-45FB-810F-5A9703CA2A4B@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:08 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-3.0561 TC:1F TRN:11 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv6 A proposal for defining generic notification framework that can be used by the mobility entities for sending and receiving asynchronous notification messages was proposed and the same was adopted by the WG. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:12:36 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH18N-0002z5-8z; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:35 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH18L-0002uJ-36 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:33 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH18K-00024k-Nh for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:33 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDB32CB134for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:31 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <4E0550EE-7FE0-4FC9-956F-638C1CAACE1C@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:31 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-6.5199 TC:1F TRN:15 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] GRE requirements for IPv6 mobility X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org GRE requirements for IPv6 mobility A proposal has been made for the use of GRE tunneling mechanism in Mobile IPv6. The GRE tunneling support exists in Mobile IPv4 and the proposal is for extending that functional capability to Mobile IPv6. Noted uses cases include the ability to carry any type of protocol payload in a generic header, the rich GRE header semantics allowing the exposure of a service identifier, such as a key that can be used by the tunnel endpoints for differential treatment of the carried payload and additionally supported by other use cases. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:12:58 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH18j-0003vF-Pe; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:57 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH18h-0003f7-S4 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:55 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH18h-0007Tr-JG for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:55 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CE32CAAD0for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:55 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:12:54 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-8.3500 TC:1F TRN:5 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] 4283bis X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org 4283bis Revised RFC 4283 to extend the subtype field in the Mobile Node identifier option to include other identifiers like IEEE 802 MAC address. The only subtype currently reserved is NAI. This may not be sufficient for all scenarios. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:23:11 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1Ia-0007yV-0f; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:08 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1IX-0007xV-S4 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:05 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1IX-0007oo-JO for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:05 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0D52CB5F5for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:14:54 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <8EDD291C-8426-4590-A304-0F3F8C1B780C@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:14:53 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-4.3583 TC:1F TRN:9 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Virtual Home Link configuration for Mobile IPv6 A proposal has been made on Mobile IPv6 home link configuration on virtual links. The proposal does not describe any new protocol, but provides the operational and configuration details and additionally provides implementation guidance for achieving this configuration. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:23:13 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1If-00086W-98; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:13 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1Id-00082A-KO for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:11 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1Id-0007p8-Bq for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:11 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8712CB57Bfor ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:14:33 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <90536185-90FF-4283-A151-7C8401201A0F@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:14:33 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-5.7136 TC:1F TRN:7 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] Interaction between Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE by PF_KEY extensions X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Interaction between Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE by PF_KEY extensions Address problems and need for interaction between the Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE. Work on solution for the interface between the Mobile IPv6 and IPsec/IKE by extensions to the PF_KEY framework and flexible way to do information share. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:23:11 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1IY-0007xc-FS; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:06 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1IW-0007xJ-RN for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:04 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1IW-0002Vs-G5 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:04 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAFF2CB65Afor ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:15:15 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <695F5BC3-D6BD-4C54-9492-59934D7A32C6@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:15:14 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-9.2321 TC:1F TRN:13 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support DSMIPv6 assumes the home network to be dual stack providing simultaneous IPv6 and IPv4 network access. It is proposed to extend DSMIPv6 to support home networks which provides IPv4, or IPv6 respectively, direct network access only, but where virtual IPv6 home network connectivity, or virtual IPv4 home network connectivity respectively, may be obtained by tunneling to the HA. The latter shall be obtained by DSMIPv6 operation using the v4HoA address as Care-of- address for the v6HoA address, and vice versa, the v6HoA address as care-of-address for the v4HoA address. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 21 13:23:18 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1Ic-0007zS-He; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:10 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1Ib-0007zG-Gm for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:09 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1Ib-0007p0-8S for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:23:09 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B342CB4B2for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:14:11 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <07B0C48E-40C1-479A-B414-4D113B3580D1@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:14:11 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-6.4302 TC:1F TRN:7 TV:5.0.1023(15682.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping for the Authentication Option Protocol X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Existing bootstrapping mechanisms for Mobile IPv6 only address the use of IKEv2/IPsec for protecting Mobile IPv6 signaling messages. Bootstrapping a home address and security associationswhen RFC 4285 is used are not addressed. This draft describes bootstrapping mechanisms for using RFC 4285 with Mobile IPv6. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From RoxannepattonMccain@rottentomatoes.com Mon Jan 21 14:01:58 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1uA-0005mu-46; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:01:58 -0500 Received: from [201.240.149.10] (helo=tesoreria) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH1u9-00041t-Da; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:01:58 -0500 Message-ID: <6d1901c85c2d$6fae3270$1201a8c0@tesoreria> From: "Pat Dick" To: Subject: Get approved in 48 hours Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:58:49 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_6D15_01C85C2D.6FAE3270" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_6D15_01C85C2D.6FAE3270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your credit score does not matter to us! If you have your own business and require IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY = way you like or require Extra money to give your business a boost or = need A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, here is the deal we can = offer you THIS NIGHT (hurry, this tender will expire THIS EVENING): $50,000+ loan Hurry, when our best deal is gone, it is gone. Simply fill this = one-minute form... Don't worry about approval, your credit will not disqualify you! http://grandplacej.net.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_6D15_01C85C2D.6FAE3270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
Your credit history = does not=20 matter to us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 need IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way you like or require Extra money to = give=20 your company a boost or wish A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, = here=20 is the deal we can offer you TONIGHT (hurry, this offer will expire=20 TODAY):
=20
 
$59,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when the deal = is gone, it=20 is gone. Simply fill this simple form...
=20
 
Do not worry about = approval, your=20 your credit report will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://grandplacej.net.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_6D15_01C85C2D.6FAE3270-- From akstcabettomnsdgs@abetto.com Mon Jan 21 20:40:39 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH87y-0004UE-K6; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:40:38 -0500 Received: from [88.140.145.197] (helo=herve-mmhs6x6ro) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH87v-0000j7-Ne; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:40:36 -0500 Received: from [88.140.145.197] by abetto.com; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:50:15 +0100 From: "Geraldine Mcneill" To: Subject: Mcneill Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:50:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Aca6QR1O2SKT0N28LIH79I38OIE5BR== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Message-ID: <01c85ca1$83f4d5d0$c5918c58@akstcabettomnsdgs> X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080120-1, 20/01/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea hiya Do you want to have a largest dick http://recuiset.com From ClaytonharmonFowler@live-media.tv Mon Jan 21 21:10:43 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH8b4-0005WJ-So; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:10:42 -0500 Received: from dslb-084-061-190-103.pools.arcor-ip.net ([84.61.190.103] helo=privatc55a6b9d) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JH8b4-0001MM-2z; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:10:42 -0500 Message-ID: <771b01c85c9b$f98db880$2101a8c0@privatc55a6b9d> From: "Lance Mendoza" To: Subject: Free Consultation with a Debt Professional Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:10:03 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_7717_01C85C9B.F98DB880" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_7717_01C85C9B.F98DB880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Join the Thousands of Americans GETTING OUT OF DEBT! Be DEBT FREE in as little as 12 MONTHS. Please visit the link below and get a free debt consultation today. NO = OBLIGATION! http://gobhere.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_7717_01C85C9B.F98DB880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
Join the Thousands of = Americans GETTING=20 OUT OF DEBT!
 
Be DEBT FREE in as little = as 12=20 MONTHS.
 
Please visit the link = below and get a=20 free debt consultation today. NO OBLIGATION!
 
http://gobhere.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_7717_01C85C9B.F98DB880-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 03:47:41 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHEn3-00025k-0U; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:47:29 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHEn1-00025e-61 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:47:27 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHEn0-0001dq-QO for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:47:27 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so2515886uge.46 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:47:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; bh=tq5d++g6NviU7WuvXVgSuStS1tlxEyRNQNozAq58cpQ=; b=PJkdKwGRGGq5JbU8qItJv08zPMhAczK+8FerC2jm9ZmeIVaYGn+5zAMT3xEob0bLA2zjcpa3NNNbQlwyaWZkdDIRs5ALhRZOoKpSNJ2WxbpfrijNsIpy2q4q22MWOsOPPKi/en2P8U7C5um1ue70FiIwYPg+T777f3OxxQ1Vgf8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=GEQI+VL399mK9LkN4IZdCsDkgdqFmdQ5ahWfRV2NWbFHMoaLp0wRnQXxmfbupJcv0ccpLaEJzN0rPbAbM1l2ulsET6RZvijQTtWO1JsZju2wr0aZanq2z5feKjRBa+72UvcuV2uoRMyMt4INvgFoLJVRhQ8L88bYHuDdJJfnGUs= Received: by 10.67.119.15 with SMTP id w15mr4818644ugm.73.1200991645999; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from ubik.local ( [212.119.9.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k1sm22250084ugf.29.2008.01.22.00.47.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:47:25 -0800 (PST) From: Julien Laganier To: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] [Recharter] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:47:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <695F5BC3-D6BD-4C54-9492-59934D7A32C6@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <695F5BC3-D6BD-4C54-9492-59934D7A32C6@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801220947.34679.julien.IETF@laposte.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org On Monday 21 January 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support > > DSMIPv6 assumes the home network to be dual stack providing > simultaneous IPv6 and IPv4 network access. It is proposed to extend > DSMIPv6 to support home networks which provides IPv4, or IPv6 > respectively, direct network access only, but where virtual IPv6 home > network connectivity, or virtual IPv4 home network connectivity > respectively, may be obtained by tunneling to the HA. The latter > shall be obtained by DSMIPv6 operation using the v4HoA address as > Care-of- address for the v6HoA address, and vice versa, the v6HoA > address as care-of-address for the v4HoA address. I have to admit that I don't really understand the usage scenario here -- there's too many commas for me in the second sentence :-P I don't really catch the meaning of "direct network access" and "virtual IPv{4,6} home network connectivity". Anybody cares to explain better, e.g. by giving detailed definition of those terms, and/or drawing ASCII art? Thanks. --julien _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 04:33:51 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHFVb-0006LH-TY; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:33:31 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHFVb-0006LC-3t for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:33:31 -0500 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHFVa-0003VA-Ik for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:33:31 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,233,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="3608277" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2008 10:33:29 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0M9XTbw019569; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:33:29 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0M9XTgo022815; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:33:29 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-337.cisco.com ([144.254.231.82]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:33:29 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:33:29 +0100 Message-ID: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering thread-index: AchcWOmtzWJPjaSuSOyReBZCDDqQjwAflSJQ From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2008 09:33:29.0343 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8B490F0:01C85CD9] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1610; t=1200994409; x=1201858409; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Pascal=20Thubert=20(pthubert)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[MEXT]=20Next=20steps=20in=20recharteri ng |Sender:=20; bh=gCG1Mmh76n1sGfUnrnAY93lfGRgf7K6MnRmFO03IMmo=; b=M/0wo6DExFRBhk7qWTIJabYq22e9VhZKlYMIJ01HTx1HnSgvKghtAfoi0p U1jqu8zlpcv/PqNwUs2Va233QSadIihfI5fMbThQUTQMBVcXNRnPD5ZxMtQT Kayxi1caUN; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=pthubert@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Marcelo: Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on route optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the list at NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? Pascal =20 >-----Original Message----- >From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es]=20 >Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >To: mext@ietf.org >Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > >Hi folks, > >Following the procedure we described for the rechartering=20 >process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be=20 >extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the=20 >merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. > >After that, we will ask you to provide >us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered=20 >based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the=20 >discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we=20 >had during this whole process, we will decide which items to=20 >propose to the AD to include in our charter. >It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a=20 >few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide=20 >what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on=20 >these elements. > >In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate=20 >mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of=20 >the discussion of each item clearly. > >Regards, Julien and marcelo > > > >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >MEXT@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 05:08:17 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHG39-00089I-20; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:08:11 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHG37-00089D-Po for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:08:09 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHG37-00041V-Bx for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:08:09 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so2531280uge.46 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:08:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; bh=JyG7XEghdfSPmrCcXRoisGNwxKoBz2j60KQ2p9UV7r8=; b=udgSmP3NqhzNSd53+/Zfnyb6ewEwmElRYOtzh2ue07LZs+7Cd5x3qeSnIyQxmyyQfBZIpp99u5KaJpexgTWTrD4b9k3/b5JydRPoCCRkePyxampwudJekJO06CBjtLpACR4NmFBjYZCm/hhANWWN2wcelAKuy+2iwyYwMWRkpJ0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=vxhwlT0tVwz2H3AafMR/kQWN4leAzYNDu8sI4JbQpXjCq0b0qTr7C+clIo8AeJFxbH9D+UtZo460tOktFn6WTyNuZxQ0uHeuhL5P6duQLSxj63/rvv5PrVSI55q5K3+2O+hhxoJAVPjZBL2LudHdFqXr9Yokms6QiqF9wmfDCAg= Received: by 10.67.116.16 with SMTP id t16mr5606643ugm.55.1200996487790; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:08:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ubik.local ( [212.119.9.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k1sm22420031ugf.29.2008.01.22.02.08.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:08:03 -0800 (PST) From: Julien Laganier To: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:08:13 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801221108.13828.julien.IETF@laposte.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hello Pascal, On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Marcelo: > > Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on > route optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on > the list at NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? Can you send us some text proposal for work items that you'd like to see included in the charter? Then we can issue more email(s) to start the discussion, e.g. on global HAHA. Thanks. --julien > >-----Original Message----- > >From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > >Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 > >To: mext@ietf.org > >Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > > > >Hi folks, > > > >Following the procedure we described for the rechartering > >process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be > >extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the > >merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. > > > >After that, we will ask you to provide > >us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered > >based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the > >discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we > >had during this whole process, we will decide which items to > >propose to the AD to include in our charter. > >It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a > >few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide > >what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on > >these elements. > > > >In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate > >mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of > >the discussion of each item clearly. > > > >Regards, Julien and marcelo > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >MEXT mailing list > >MEXT@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 05:27:25 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGLi-0006H3-JL; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:27:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGLh-0006GN-Vm for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:27:21 -0500 Received: from server9.hosting2go.nl ([83.137.192.232]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGLh-0004O0-8I for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:27:21 -0500 Received: (qmail 9561 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2008 11:27:19 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO M90Teco) (217.169.232.206) by server9.hosting2go.nl with SMTP; 22 Jan 2008 11:27:19 +0100 From: "Teco Boot" To: "'Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)'" , "'marcelo bagnulo braun'" , References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> Subject: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:26:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000301c85ce1$5c630790$152916b0$@nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 thread-index: AchcWOmtzWJPjaSuSOyReBZCDDqQjwAflSJQAAEnOJA= Content-Language: nl X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17 Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org I had the same idea as Pascal. I think we are in a phase providing the NEMO-RO requirement documents and analyzing these documents. Current charter on NEMO-RO: "gather requirements and proceed with solving the open issues". Is the intention to define "next steps in rechartering" for NEMO-RO right now? I am aware of the relation with Autoconf and MANET WGs. Teco. > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com] > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 januari 2008 10:33 > Aan: marcelo bagnulo braun; mext@ietf.org > Onderwerp: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > > Hi Marcelo: > > Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on route > optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the list > at > NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? > > Pascal > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > >Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 > >To: mext@ietf.org > >Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > > > >Hi folks, > > > >Following the procedure we described for the rechartering > >process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be > >extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the > >merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. > > > >After that, we will ask you to provide > >us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered > >based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the > >discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we > >had during this whole process, we will decide which items to > >propose to the AD to include in our charter. > >It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a > >few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide > >what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on > >these elements. > > > >In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate > >mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of > >the discussion of each item clearly. > > > >Regards, Julien and marcelo > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >MEXT mailing list > >MEXT@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 05:41:05 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGYu-0002jr-Bo; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:41:00 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGYt-0002en-3F for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:40:59 -0500 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.226]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGYs-0004ie-Kb for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:40:59 -0500 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s8so1473914wxc.31 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:40:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=hZFddeQEJvu9MjbWjAH0jYgCxnPaE+rk0JjM5a4dgaQ=; b=j4z9wo+3/7Lauqq+LtHO7JtoCl7L1VE3O6juwMkgr8I59wHsQpKLsw8Oa92i3nBep45IBhz5/Ji2VYbf49XCPxN5s3Rr9OKu4dcayshgqgMAu+o+oVEGEh27z5iqu7FRXzoLuep85wE5/AyX5myIh6sJgeBlQuMpdxrKQSF3qVM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=c9kBRdgKZeUTUdR2PEgq6MZWdkKrLsGscJSlo2a1A4t5OitCz0D6leYDQuX+0muaj+1Ql6xJi2nhjEq79mG1HUvFlGIAdopEtTmpDR9am4QtNZ/iNtqKY4KL/wQqV2v3kBK5sFx8SaTvoyvMCKNipcRFETSC9ksx3cW96usOsTI= Received: by 10.142.191.2 with SMTP id o2mr3841734wff.132.1200998457485; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:40:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.122.3 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:40:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7e8d02d40801220240u6af5f613o7d78b2154628ac0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:40:57 +0900 From: "HyungJin Lim" To: "Teco Boot" Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering In-Reply-To: <000301c85ce1$5c630790$152916b0$@nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <000301c85ce1$5c630790$152916b0$@nl> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Teco, 2008/1/22, Teco Boot : > I had the same idea as Pascal. > I think we are in a phase providing the NEMO-RO requirement documents and > analyzing these documents. > Current charter on NEMO-RO: "gather requirements and proceed with solving > the open issues". > Is the intention to define "next steps in rechartering" for NEMO-RO right > now? > > I am aware of the relation with Autoconf and MANET WGs. I agree with your pounting out. I saw impacts that address configuration scheme has. I think I am also aware of the relation with both WGs. thanks Hyung-Jin, Lim > > Teco. > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com] > > Verzonden: dinsdag 22 januari 2008 10:33 > > Aan: marcelo bagnulo braun; mext@ietf.org > > Onderwerp: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > > > > Hi Marcelo: > > > > Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on route > > optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the list > > at > > NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? > > > > Pascal > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > > >Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 > > >To: mext@ietf.org > > >Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > > > > > >Hi folks, > > > > > >Following the procedure we described for the rechartering > > >process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be > > >extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the > > >merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. > > > > > >After that, we will ask you to provide > > >us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered > > >based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the > > >discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we > > >had during this whole process, we will decide which items to > > >propose to the AD to include in our charter. > > >It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a > > >few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide > > >what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on > > >these elements. > > > > > >In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate > > >mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of > > >the discussion of each item clearly. > > > > > >Regards, Julien and marcelo > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >MEXT mailing list > > >MEXT@ietf.org > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 06:03:22 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGuQ-0008Pk-Ql; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:03:14 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGuP-0008Pf-R8 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:03:13 -0500 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHGuP-00056k-8H for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:03:13 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,233,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="3623896" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2008 12:03:12 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0MB3CBZ024366; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:03:12 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0MB35gs008346; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:03:12 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-337.cisco.com ([144.254.231.82]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:03:06 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:02:50 +0100 Message-ID: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BE83@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <200801221108.13828.julien.IETF@laposte.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering thread-index: Achc3rubCxF3EdVJRHmbpSO+UTxftwABjZKg From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Julien Laganier" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2008 11:03:06.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DE82EB0:01C85CE6] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3216; t=1200999792; x=1201863792; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Pascal=20Thubert=20(pthubert)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[MEXT]=20Next=20steps=20in=20recharteri ng |Sender:=20; bh=M+64gPY4qTfDIkm8a8YdLMsNZaKB/4XL/XU37t9TtyQ=; b=j+7GuE8PuxqKLHchQt0jwmXEvYKO+13z0vnbO8lUaW16ZyXjiyOuytMFOY /KJhNlQ4c8D7ux801crZo+9Br56cyuXZvxEtxpdf+bWWuY52P5mPL+g8FRAV DBiz3H2Hut; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=pthubert@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Julien: I do not have text right now because I'm not too sure what to write.=20 At the end of the day, I'd suggest that whatever text we come up with makes a clear distinction between nested and non nested situations. A number of the suboptimalities detailed in RFC 4888 are effectively much more of a problem in the nested NEMO case.=20 - Nested NEMO yields all the MANEMO discussions, whether we form a specific WG, whether an existing WG already owns the space, whether and how far existing solutions can be used in which situations, etc...=20 - Non nested is more clearly within MEXT's basket and we could tackle the problem faster and with mush less politics involved.=20 What do you think? Pascal =20 >-----Original Message----- >From: julien laganier [mailto:julien.laganier@gmail.com] On=20 >Behalf Of Julien Laganier >Sent: mardi 22 janvier 2008 11:08 >To: mext@ietf.org >Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); marcelo bagnulo braun >Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > >Hello Pascal, > >On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >> Hi Marcelo: >> >> Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is=20 >work on route=20 >> optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on=20 >the list=20 >> at NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? > >Can you send us some text proposal for work items that you'd=20 >like to see included in the charter? Then we can issue more=20 >email(s) to start the discussion, e.g. on global HAHA. > >Thanks. > >--julien > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >> >Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >> >To: mext@ietf.org >> >Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >> > >> >Hi folks, >> > >> >Following the procedure we described for the rechartering=20 >process, we=20 >> >will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended if the=20 >> >discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and the=20 >needs for=20 >> >the different items, in case you want to. >> > >> >After that, we will ask you to provide us an ordered list of the=20 >> >items we should work on, ordered based on the priority of the work.=20 >> >Based on that, the discussion we had, on the other expressions of=20 >> >interests we had during this whole process, we will decide which=20 >> >items to propose to the AD to include in our charter. >> >It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a few=20 >> >items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide=20 >what's in and=20 >> >what's left for the next rechartering based on these elements. >> > >> >In order to organize the discussion, we will send a=20 >separate mail for=20 >> >each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the=20 >discussion of=20 >> >each item clearly. >> > >> >Regards, Julien and marcelo >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >MEXT mailing list >> >MEXT@ietf.org >> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 06:47:25 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHHb6-0004zd-Om; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:47:20 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHHb4-0004zY-VE for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:47:18 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHHb2-0006A2-Ks for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:47:18 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0282BEBEC;Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:47:15 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:47:15 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-30.5147 TC:1F TRN:48 TV:5.0.1023(15682.003) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Pascal, In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as open as =20 possible so far and we have included all the concrete proposals that =20 have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is because =20 anyone made such proposal. In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the =20 meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics related to =20= nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The feedback =20= we got from the AD is that we should not open the problem space too =20 much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, like the ro =20 problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having globally distributed =20= HAs, maybe not. Regards, marcelo El 22/01/2008, a las 10:33, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: > Hi Marcelo: > > Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on route > optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the =20 > list at > NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? > > Pascal > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >> Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >> To: mext@ietf.org >> Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Following the procedure we described for the rechartering >> process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be >> extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the >> merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. >> >> After that, we will ask you to provide >> us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered >> based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the >> discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we >> had during this whole process, we will decide which items to >> propose to the AD to include in our charter. >> It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a >> few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide >> what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on >> these elements. >> >> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate >> mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of >> the discussion of each item clearly. >> >> Regards, Julien and marcelo >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 06:59:45 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHHn2-0001mq-AK; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:59:40 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHHn1-0001gn-3x for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:59:39 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHHn0-0006LA-AO for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:59:38 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9042BEB76;Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:59:36 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <000301c85ce1$5c630790$152916b0$@nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:59:37 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <000301c85ce1$5c630790$152916b0$@nl> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-21.2499 TC:1F TRN:49 TV:5.0.1023(15682.003) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: a8a20a483a84f747e56475e290ee868e Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Teco, i don't think that this is the rechartering that the charter refers in =20= the nemo ro case. I think this recharter is to be considered once we =20 have finished the requirements and we decide to work on solutions, in =20= particular for the vehicular and the personal router case, for whic we =20= need to recharter to work on solutions. this is not the case for the =20 aviation case, in which we don not need to recharter to do work on =20 solutions. bottom line is that this is not the only chance for rechartering and =20 it is likely that we will need to recharter in the future. The question is what issues are urgent and need to be worked out =20 inmediatelly to foster mip/nemo implementation and deployment. Regards, marcelo El 22/01/2008, a las 11:26, Teco Boot escribi=F3: > I had the same idea as Pascal. > I think we are in a phase providing the NEMO-RO requirement =20 > documents and > analyzing these documents. > Current charter on NEMO-RO: "gather requirements and proceed with =20 > solving > the open issues". > Is the intention to define "next steps in rechartering" for NEMO-RO =20= > right > now? > > I am aware of the relation with Autoconf and MANET WGs. > > Teco. > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com] >> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 januari 2008 10:33 >> Aan: marcelo bagnulo braun; mext@ietf.org >> Onderwerp: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >> >> Hi Marcelo: >> >> Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on =20 >> route >> optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the list >> at >> NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? >> >> Pascal >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >>> Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >>> To: mext@ietf.org >>> Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Following the procedure we described for the rechartering >>> process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be >>> extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the >>> merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. >>> >>> After that, we will ask you to provide >>> us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered >>> based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the >>> discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we >>> had during this whole process, we will decide which items to >>> propose to the AD to include in our charter. >>> It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a >>> few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide >>> what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on >>> these elements. >>> >>> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate >>> mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of >>> the discussion of each item clearly. >>> >>> Regards, Julien and marcelo >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From snathcamwjc@cold.org.gr Tue Jan 22 07:17:55 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHI4h-0006vc-CO for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:17:55 -0500 Received: from [89.159.35.73] (helo=089159035073.chello.fr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHI4g-0007Lt-Tt for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:17:55 -0500 Received: from ALAN ([109.199.81.177] helo=ALAN) by 089159035073.chello.fr ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1XSMzX-000WKK-Pj for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:18:13 +0100 Message-ID: <73F21B2C.382511FB@cold.org.gr> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:17:56 +0100 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: sneol Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Safe, fast, highly effective and natural Mens Enlargement supplement http://oagahigia.com/
From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 07:23:40 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHIA9-0000qI-Va; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:23:33 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHIA8-0000q5-55 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:23:32 -0500 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.226]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHIA7-0007t2-Qs for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:23:32 -0500 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id n1so1334542nzf.4 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:23:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=XISjYh1zBgxDLle8h44wLAb8w5z4/mTaYz6GBV8b+NM=; b=QIokTzxYOFvNbfwGA0276GO4ySl3ErTnHbuXdSVxm0k6v1ysfSjXnbOz5z2OZQvt0xpMQMMNqSaRVJd9YS76WaLfB1YxqdmZ1PNzD3PhRwMuHvPe1aJHnPKU/tNb7vnI1bmstZekSjEr8qraIyB5U2e7Vbpa8ta6ZJ+xILVp/Js= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Evv6YF/hehmipdOD8ffQ5wFAz4cPKt41KxuiZPaUdKT2tGcfI2yZhTCjUgU0xcdYn8TVozQEqx5gvIVp+ctYs0SzdMU0xUTS1X5LZCS60UN4mbkbPBNzvfk5oPJdv6rcqbgqVj+ZMnM1S0io0+WPq5KoVAiJToChnqXxFER37k4= Received: by 10.142.178.13 with SMTP id a13mr3925377wff.129.1201004610681; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:23:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.122.3 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:23:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7e8d02d40801220423n3422f32ak650ae16a42575f05@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:23:30 +0900 From: "HyungJin Lim" To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BE83@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200801221108.13828.julien.IETF@laposte.net> <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BE83@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Pascal, See the inline.... 2008/1/22, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) : > Hi Julien: > > I do not have text right now because I'm not too sure what to write. > > At the end of the day, I'd suggest that whatever text we come up with > makes a clear distinction between nested and non nested situations. A > number of the suboptimalities detailed in RFC 4888 are effectively much > more of a problem in the nested NEMO case. > > - Nested NEMO yields all the MANEMO discussions, whether we form a > specific WG, whether an existing WG already owns the space, whether and > how far existing solutions can be used in which situations, etc... Yes, NEMO RO's fundemental problem as well as impacts should be defined I think also, This issue is relation to NEMO AAA performance degration in nested topology. > > - Non nested is more clearly within MEXT's basket and we could tackle > the problem faster and with mush less politics involved. > > What do you think? > > Pascal > > > >-----Original Message----- _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 08:05:18 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHIoS-0007vt-8Y; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:05:12 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHIoQ-0007vm-If for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:05:10 -0500 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHIoQ-0000Oe-1U for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:05:10 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,233,1199660400"; d="vcf'?scan'208";a="8159303" Received: from dhcp-rocq-52.inria.fr ([128.93.62.52]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Jan 2008 14:05:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:05:05 +0100 From: Thierry Ernst Organization: INRIA User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070109090508020706040705" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070109090508020706040705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as open as > possible so far and we have included all the concrete proposals that > have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is because > anyone made such proposal. > > In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the meeting > and there was some disucssion about several topics related to nemo > deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The feedback we got > from the AD is that we should not open the problem space too much, since > we already have difficult problems ahead, like the ro problem. Don't > know if this would aplly to having globally distributed HAs, maybe not. Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The aviation industry needs it. Thierry > Regards, marcelo > > El 22/01/2008, a las 10:33, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribió: > >> Hi Marcelo: >> >> Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on route >> optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the list at >> NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? >> >> Pascal >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >>> Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >>> To: mext@ietf.org >>> Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Following the procedure we described for the rechartering >>> process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be >>> extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the >>> merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. >>> >>> After that, we will ask you to provide >>> us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered >>> based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the >>> discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we >>> had during this whole process, we will decide which items to >>> propose to the AD to include in our charter. >>> It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a >>> few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide >>> what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on >>> these elements. >>> >>> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate >>> mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of >>> the discussion of each item clearly. >>> >>> Regards, Julien and marcelo >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --------------070109090508020706040705 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="thierry_ernst.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thierry_ernst.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Thierry Ernst n:Ernst;Thierry org:INRIA Rocquencourt;IMARA - LARA adr:;;;;;;France tel;work:+33 1 39 63 59 30 tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91 url:http://www.lara.prd.fr version:2.1 end:vcard --------------070109090508020706040705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --------------070109090508020706040705-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 09:05:32 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJkj-0005EL-6f; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:05:25 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJki-00057c-8N for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:05:24 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJkh-00040r-Ls for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:05:23 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so2583751uge.46 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:05:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; bh=hfxSdPboSmi/aOglzLnVEwo6M9nHe6uXVN10PNXgz1s=; b=rim0kltNLNDfYIy76LqwD9sH6yXmDsg6PTG1GDRdvZ78DM9mTPGgHPrtCZm/ljtTQs/KNknx193cuj04lZ+EkGvT+rk4Be5EvYGSzPKZ5v/iHD0psbUV34dlH8K8Y1r8Ht+BRQCGkmtdfr2kD6YnSunVbiDTTKZMsiBP2aW3Lys= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=xpZG3FLTM3SuLMDysJmfu3oC/VPaa0Tu7KqYxoskpYlEHameWzW0hdyKFvpO0x/nhyw5PgBG63eV+9+QZglDWAhaaWbakY1gIrdf8mXvKsExChGQcN7iywJl+6YVzGIhshiEfcnpGv7wcTykNT1nqQH8hpQvoonLfMT5bP2125s= Received: by 10.67.25.6 with SMTP id c6mr5695303ugj.65.1201010722815; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ubik.local ( [212.119.9.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 27sm23042892ugp.19.2008.01.22.06.05.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:05:21 -0800 (PST) From: Julien Laganier To: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:05:30 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BE83@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BE83@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801221505.31509.julien.IETF@laposte.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hello Pascal, On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Julien: > > I do not have text right now because I'm not too sure what to write. > > At the end of the day, I'd suggest that whatever text we come up with > makes a clear distinction between nested and non nested situations. A > number of the suboptimalities detailed in RFC 4888 are effectively > much more of a problem in the nested NEMO case. > > - Nested NEMO yields all the MANEMO discussions, whether we form a > specific WG, whether an existing WG already owns the space, whether > and how far existing solutions can be used in which situations, > etc... > > - Non nested is more clearly within MEXT's basket and we could tackle > the problem faster and with mush less politics involved. > > What do you think? I see your point about distinction between nested and non-nested cases. However I'd suggest that whatever text we finally agree on -- or not -- we do need a text proposal to have a productive discussion. Not everybody understand "global haha". The initial text proposal can then evolve as part of the discussion. --julien _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 09:07:44 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJmy-0001L7-95; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:07:44 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJmx-0001L2-EN for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:07:43 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJmx-00045c-1P for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:07:43 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so2584481uge.46 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:07:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; bh=A9TkC0TPYlxcsYZ/qbwDTf97dQtGrIhPkGQI1WQZnd8=; b=qz0Qe9ob3ddk4nRt2NoE5kJce6u/+ESEWHgmoRqPTt7i3kiIx3NBVqERo/SBkuD/7+xDVMrhM9L6+PBkCcpGHBZEeomDxIMzTYP5UvLE3/iSBFAS2ag+2AYLGBphDTz0zzopGdZCXxNrRjbOdAXj5RDJmv9bp8+MWpnVuzNGknA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=AGzdHexVfqbJIlwbsUgQmLHuZ5ZHgowCMnb84vUGI4ehVf8HwQa/O4DpoG2N9hip7zg+/no2tpBgpg0msP4a8PL9vLjzuknqiPQf+5qzzTxaSAiJRWzUxOoPEwarT23l5baIDjfaWMuaX+fpiLt5o0MXR2PBgRj1le5S3UrQTg0= Received: by 10.67.100.12 with SMTP id c12mr6010688ugm.28.1201010861955; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:07:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ubik.local ( [212.119.9.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm23028210ugf.22.2008.01.22.06.07.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:07:41 -0800 (PST) From: Julien Laganier To: mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:07:52 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hello Thierry, On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: > > In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as open > > as possible so far and we have included all the concrete proposals > > that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is > > because anyone made such proposal. > > > > In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the > > meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics related > > to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The > > feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open the problem > > space too much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, > > like the ro problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having > > globally distributed HAs, maybe not. > > Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The aviation > industry needs it. I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not Global HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. Please do propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have that. Thanks. --julien _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 09:16:29 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJvP-0002vl-Pw; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:16:27 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJvO-0002vc-Fa for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:16:26 -0500 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHJvO-0004Lc-2E for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:16:26 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,233,1199660400"; d="vcf'?scan'208";a="8164276" Received: from dhcp-rocq-52.inria.fr ([128.93.62.52]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Jan 2008 15:16:25 +0100 Message-ID: <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:16:21 +0100 From: Thierry Ernst Organization: INRIA User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julien Laganier Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr> <200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> In-Reply-To: <200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070308010901010406090406" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070308010901010406090406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: >> > In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as open >>> as possible so far and we have included all the concrete proposals >>> that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is >>> because anyone made such proposal. >>> >>> In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the >>> meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics related >>> to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The >>> feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open the problem >>> space too much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, >>> like the ro problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having >>> globally distributed HAs, maybe not. >> Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The aviation >> industry needs it. > > I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not Global > HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. Please do > propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the > discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have that. I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it can switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant location (e.g. Madrid to Munich). Thierry --------------070308010901010406090406 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="thierry_ernst.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thierry_ernst.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Thierry Ernst n:Ernst;Thierry org:INRIA Rocquencourt;IMARA - LARA adr:;;;;;;France tel;work:+33 1 39 63 59 30 tel;fax:+33 1 39 63 54 91 url:http://www.lara.prd.fr version:2.1 end:vcard --------------070308010901010406090406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --------------070308010901010406090406-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 09:43:02 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHKL5-00008R-2j; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:42:59 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHKL4-00008M-Bi for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:42:58 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHKL2-0003so-5q for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:42:58 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so2594330uge.46 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:42:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; bh=xsdqwYa7P5ZP7oixrlPgKbxl4PVHkg1ylSUXDhGm7BI=; b=pnoZDWxBFUpxjm1wzYO1YdCDUuNt5oyyZtCeO845nJ5IFjOZXK7TfZ0UJuj3oVVARvWr/ya9Iz+132r2keR59Gkk7VC8QGMnaiinDFZCKYSn8RYUXJmpaQVoW1AXwvUJHFJj4wRQfSqD6aovnxUckCuAAVznukYHDMpVg+g9fMU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=I8HPFW1+RE8qTrjxAq5yxv3gK/zf6hIK7UpyFMbdVga356L4Xh5bNZL06X2rXJ436SzmzjDs8LBJNE06RsTt7rS35s/LMhJW6CnrOoIxT326PrcqiAMFoS5ANtUsWvA2hC6W0YzidLrFNPgYIow/6X6H4zaGhqTRp5l58gRUWs8= Received: by 10.66.242.5 with SMTP id p5mr5685983ugh.4.1201012974936; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:42:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ubik.local ( [212.119.9.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 30sm23161470ugf.31.2008.01.22.06.42.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:42:54 -0800 (PST) From: Julien Laganier To: Thierry Ernst Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:43:02 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801221543.03650.julien.IETF@laposte.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: > >> > In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as > >> > open > >>> > >>> as possible so far and we have included all the concrete > >>> proposals that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the > >>> list, is because anyone made such proposal. > >>> > >>> In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the > >>> meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics > >>> related to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of > >>> them. The feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open > >>> the problem space too much, since we already have difficult > >>> problems ahead, like the ro problem. Don't know if this would > >>> aplly to having globally distributed HAs, maybe not. > >> > >> Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The > >> aviation industry needs it. > > > > I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not Global > > HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. Please do > > propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the > > discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have that. > > I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the > solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it can > switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant location > (e.g. Madrid to Munich). Your last sentence is a good start at a text proposal. Could you elaborate? E.g., what does "switch" mean in that context? A HA is dealing with MNs and/or mobile networks numbered within aggregated addressing space routed to the HA. What are the implication of the switch w.r.t. aggregation? Does it mean the address block is advertized twice thru both HA? etc. --julien _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 10:20:01 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHKuP-0007Mv-N3; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:19:29 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHKuO-0007MW-0l for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:19:28 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHKuM-0005XG-Ab for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:19:27 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6073F2D5730;Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:19:25 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <603D1AC3-99C5-49B3-AB39-2628626906A2@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Thierry Ernst In-Reply-To: <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:19:25 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco .com> <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr> <200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-28.6053 TC:1F TRN:44 TV:5.0.1023(15684.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Cc: mext@ietf.org, Julien Laganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org El 22/01/2008, a las 15:16, Thierry Ernst escribi=F3: > >> On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: >>> > In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as open >>>> as possible so far and we have included all the concrete proposals >>>> that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is >>>> because anyone made such proposal. >>>> >>>> In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the >>>> meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics related >>>> to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The >>>> feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open the problem >>>> space too much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, >>>> like the ro problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having >>>> globally distributed HAs, maybe not. >>> Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The aviation >>> industry needs it. >> I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not Global =20= >> HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. Please do =20= >> propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the =20 >> discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have that. > > I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the =20 > solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it =20 > can switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant =20 > location (e.g. Madrid to Munich). > could you point out where this requirement is specified in the =20 requirements document? > Thierry > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 10:33:49 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHL8F-0002k7-Jj; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:33:47 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHL8E-0002jv-Q2 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:33:46 -0500 Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.96.56]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHL8E-0007Wm-C4 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:33:46 -0500 Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [192.42.227.216]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m0MFXUsH009558 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:33:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m0MFXTHj027831; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m0MFXSXK027713; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:33:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.55.69]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:33:27 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:33:27 -0800 Message-ID: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00B@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <603D1AC3-99C5-49B3-AB39-2628626906A2@it.uc3m.es> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Thread-Index: AchdCocUTUmvrijtRL6JCuia4+2OAQAANa3A References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr><200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> <603D1AC3-99C5-49B3-AB39-2628626906A2@it.uc3m.es> From: "Davis, Terry L" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" , "Thierry Ernst" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2008 15:33:27.0931 (UTC) FILETIME=[22778CB0:01C85D0C] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Marcelo If the requirement isn't explicitly clear then we can clearly state it. = We have a few airlines that actually touch three continents before = powering down the aircraft. Both satellite communications and = air-to-ground links, need to hand off smoothly between regions and = continents as the aircraft crosses "air navigation service" boundaries = and is handed off from one country's or region's service to another's. Take care Terry > -----Original Message----- > From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:19 AM > To: Thierry Ernst > Cc: mext@ietf.org; Julien Laganier > Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >=20 >=20 > El 22/01/2008, a las 15:16, Thierry Ernst escribi=F3: >=20 > > > >> On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: > >>> > In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as = open > >>>> as possible so far and we have included all the concrete = proposals > >>>> that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is > >>>> because anyone made such proposal. > >>>> > >>>> In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the > >>>> meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics = related > >>>> to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The > >>>> feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open the = problem > >>>> space too much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, > >>>> like the ro problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having > >>>> globally distributed HAs, maybe not. > >>> Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The = aviation > >>> industry needs it. > >> I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not Global > >> HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. Please do > >> propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the > >> discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have that. > > > > I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the > > solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it > > can switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant > > location (e.g. Madrid to Munich). > > >=20 > could you point out where this requirement is specified in the > requirements document? >=20 >=20 > > Thierry > > > > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 10:41:48 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLFt-0000vS-7v; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:41:41 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLFs-0000vH-KH for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:41:40 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLFq-0006QD-L6 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:41:40 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id C549D2BF20F;Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:41:36 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <488D9AEC-C666-46FD-BEC0-4464FE6B5241@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: "Davis, Terry L" In-Reply-To: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00B@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:41:36 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco .com> <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr><200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> <603D1AC3-99C5-49B3-AB39-2628626906A2@it.uc3m.es> <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00B@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-34.3594 TC:1F TRN:62 TV:5.0.1023(15684.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 9a2be21919e71dc6faef12b370c4ecf5 Cc: mext@ietf.org, Julien Laganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Terry, El 22/01/2008, a las 16:33, Davis, Terry L escribi=F3: > Marcelo > > If the requirement isn't explicitly clear then we can clearly state =20= > it. We have a few airlines that actually touch three continents =20 > before powering down the aircraft. Both satellite communications =20 > and air-to-ground links, need to hand off smoothly between regions =20 > and continents as the aircraft crosses "air navigation service" =20 > boundaries and is handed off from one country's or region's service =20= > to another's. right, this clearly means that there is a need for Route optimization, =20= meaning that the aircraft needs direct (optimized) communication with =20= the local infrastructure, but does this means that it needs to have a =20= Home Agent located in each of these locations? I can clearly identify in the requirement draft the need for route =20 optimization with CNs distributed along the globe. I can also identify in the draft the need for duplicated HAs in order =20= to provide fault tolerance. However, what i don't identify in the draft is the need to have =20 globally distributed HAs Of course, having a globally distributed HAs would indeed fullfill =20 both requirements, but is is a necesary condition for any acceptable =20 solution to support this? Regards, marcelo > > > Take care > Terry > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:19 AM >> To: Thierry Ernst >> Cc: mext@ietf.org; Julien Laganier >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >> >> >> El 22/01/2008, a las 15:16, Thierry Ernst escribi=F3: >> >>> >>>> On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: >>>>>> In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as open >>>>>> as possible so far and we have included all the concrete =20 >>>>>> proposals >>>>>> that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is >>>>>> because anyone made such proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during the >>>>>> meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics =20 >>>>>> related >>>>>> to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. The >>>>>> feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open the =20 >>>>>> problem >>>>>> space too much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, >>>>>> like the ro problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having >>>>>> globally distributed HAs, maybe not. >>>>> Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The =20 >>>>> aviation >>>>> industry needs it. >>>> I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not Global >>>> HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. Please do >>>> propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the >>>> discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have that. >>> >>> I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the >>> solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it >>> can switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant >>> location (e.g. Madrid to Munich). >>> >> >> could you point out where this requirement is specified in the >> requirements document? >> >> >>> Thierry >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 10:53:36 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLRO-0008No-70; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:53:34 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLRM-0008NU-G8 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:53:32 -0500 Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.64.48]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLRL-00070x-JK for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:53:32 -0500 Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [192.42.227.216]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m0MFrNp5009746 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:53:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m0MFrNsP010085; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m0MFrMWD010072; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.55.69]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:53:22 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:53:21 -0800 Message-ID: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00C@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <488D9AEC-C666-46FD-BEC0-4464FE6B5241@it.uc3m.es> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Thread-Index: AchdDeeo9UImfZQ2QVuifWn6oJN1WAAACdWQ References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr><200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> <603D1AC3-99C5-49B3-AB39-2628626906A2@it.uc3m.es> <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00B@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> <488D9AEC-C666-46FD-BEC0-4464FE6B5241@it.uc3m.es> From: "Davis, Terry L" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2008 15:53:22.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA826AC0:01C85D0E] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2 Cc: mext@ietf.org, Julien Laganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Marcelo As long as the requirements are understood, I'll wait to see how the = work develops. My biggest concern probably still remains the = configuration complexity any solution will levy on the "air navigation = service" providers. Take care Terry > -----Original Message----- > From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:42 AM > To: Davis, Terry L > Cc: Thierry Ernst; Julien Laganier; mext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >=20 > Hi Terry, >=20 > El 22/01/2008, a las 16:33, Davis, Terry L escribi=F3: >=20 > > Marcelo > > > > If the requirement isn't explicitly clear then we can clearly state > > it. We have a few airlines that actually touch three continents > > before powering down the aircraft. Both satellite communications > > and air-to-ground links, need to hand off smoothly between regions > > and continents as the aircraft crosses "air navigation service" > > boundaries and is handed off from one country's or region's service > > to another's. >=20 > right, this clearly means that there is a need for Route optimization, > meaning that the aircraft needs direct (optimized) communication with > the local infrastructure, but does this means that it needs to have a > Home Agent located in each of these locations? >=20 > I can clearly identify in the requirement draft the need for route > optimization with CNs distributed along the globe. > I can also identify in the draft the need for duplicated HAs in order > to provide fault tolerance. >=20 > However, what i don't identify in the draft is the need to have > globally distributed HAs >=20 > Of course, having a globally distributed HAs would indeed fullfill > both requirements, but is is a necesary condition for any acceptable > solution to support this? >=20 > Regards, marcelo >=20 >=20 >=20 > > > > > > Take care > > Terry > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:19 AM > >> To: Thierry Ernst > >> Cc: mext@ietf.org; Julien Laganier > >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > >> > >> > >> El 22/01/2008, a las 15:16, Thierry Ernst escribi=F3: > >> > >>> > >>>> On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: > >>>>>> In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as = open > >>>>>> as possible so far and we have included all the concrete > >>>>>> proposals > >>>>>> that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is > >>>>>> because anyone made such proposal. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during = the > >>>>>> meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics > >>>>>> related > >>>>>> to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. = The > >>>>>> feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open the > >>>>>> problem > >>>>>> space too much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, > >>>>>> like the ro problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having > >>>>>> globally distributed HAs, maybe not. > >>>>> Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The > >>>>> aviation > >>>>> industry needs it. > >>>> I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not = Global > >>>> HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. Please = do > >>>> propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the > >>>> discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have = that. > >>> > >>> I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the > >>> solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it > >>> can switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant > >>> location (e.g. Madrid to Munich). > >>> > >> > >> could you point out where this requirement is specified in the > >> requirements document? > >> > >> > >>> Thierry > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> MEXT mailing list > >> MEXT@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 10:59:25 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLX1-0000Av-8s; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:59:23 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLWz-0000Al-4z for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:59:21 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLWy-0000P7-0z for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:59:20 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76D02BF239;Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:59:18 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <8834DA59-8A73-4814-88F4-C75DF6D010BE@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: "Davis, Terry L" In-Reply-To: <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00C@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:59:17 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco .com> <4795EA01.4060208@inria.fr><200801221507.53016.julien.IETF@laposte.net> <4795FAB5.5010607@inria.fr> <603D1AC3-99C5-49B3-AB39-2628626906A2@it.uc3m.es> <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00B@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> <488D9AEC-C666-46FD-BEC0-4464FE6B5241@it.uc3m.es> <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00C@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-35.4542 TC:1F TRN:83 TV:5.0.1023(15684.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 86f85b2f88b0d50615aed44a7f9e33c7 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Terry, El 22/01/2008, a las 16:53, Davis, Terry L escribi=F3: > Marcelo > > As long as the requirements are understood, this is exactly my concern In the draft, the following is stated: 3.4.1. Rationale for Aeronautics - Availability A need for high availability of connectivity to ground networks arises from the use of IP networking for carrying safety-of-life critical traffic. For this reason, single points of failure need to be avoided. If an RO solution assumes either a single MR onboard, a single HA, or some similar vulnerable point, and is not usable when redundant elements are present and in use then it will not be acceptable. An RO solution also MUST NOT itself imply a single =20 point of failure. This does not mention specific redundancy mechanisms for MRs, HAs, =20= or other networking elements, so as long as some reasonable method for making each component redundant fits within the assumptions of the =20= RO mechanism, this requirement can be considered satisfied. So, it is explicitly noted that HAs need to be redundant, so this is =20 clear However, this does NOT directly imply having globally distributed HAs =20= in different sites. I mean, just having multiple HAs in the same site =20= would cover this requirement.(the site could be globally distributed, =20= though, but still a single site) So, i am worried by your comment that this is needed, because this is =20= not what i understood from the draft Maybe this is exactly the type of precisions that would benefit from =20 the f2f discussion in the meeting Regards, marcelo > I'll wait to see how the work develops. My biggest concern probably =20= > still remains the configuration complexity any solution will levy on =20= > the "air navigation service" providers. > > Take care > Terry > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:42 AM >> To: Davis, Terry L >> Cc: Thierry Ernst; Julien Laganier; mext@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >> >> Hi Terry, >> >> El 22/01/2008, a las 16:33, Davis, Terry L escribi=F3: >> >>> Marcelo >>> >>> If the requirement isn't explicitly clear then we can clearly state >>> it. We have a few airlines that actually touch three continents >>> before powering down the aircraft. Both satellite communications >>> and air-to-ground links, need to hand off smoothly between regions >>> and continents as the aircraft crosses "air navigation service" >>> boundaries and is handed off from one country's or region's service >>> to another's. >> >> right, this clearly means that there is a need for Route =20 >> optimization, >> meaning that the aircraft needs direct (optimized) communication with >> the local infrastructure, but does this means that it needs to have a >> Home Agent located in each of these locations? >> >> I can clearly identify in the requirement draft the need for route >> optimization with CNs distributed along the globe. >> I can also identify in the draft the need for duplicated HAs in order >> to provide fault tolerance. >> >> However, what i don't identify in the draft is the need to have >> globally distributed HAs >> >> Of course, having a globally distributed HAs would indeed fullfill >> both requirements, but is is a necesary condition for any acceptable >> solution to support this? >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Take care >>> Terry >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:19 AM >>>> To: Thierry Ernst >>>> Cc: mext@ietf.org; Julien Laganier >>>> Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >>>> >>>> >>>> El 22/01/2008, a las 15:16, Thierry Ernst escribi=F3: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Thierry Ernst wrote: >>>>>>>> In general terms, i can say that we have done the process as =20= >>>>>>>> open >>>>>>>> as possible so far and we have included all the concrete >>>>>>>> proposals >>>>>>>> that have been proposed so far, so if it is not in the list, is >>>>>>>> because anyone made such proposal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In this particular topic, Thierry made a presentation during =20= >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> meeting and there was some disucssion about several topics >>>>>>>> related >>>>>>>> to nemo deployment, not sure if global haha was one of them. =20= >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> feedback we got from the AD is that we should not open the >>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>> space too much, since we already have difficult problems ahead, >>>>>>>> like the ro problem. Don't know if this would aplly to having >>>>>>>> globally distributed HAs, maybe not. >>>>>>> Global HAHA was part of it, and is the most important. The >>>>>>> aviation >>>>>>> industry needs it. >>>>>> I am not convinced that aviation industry needs or needs not =20 >>>>>> Global >>>>>> HAHA, but his is irrelevant to this rechartering process. =20 >>>>>> Please do >>>>>> propose some text to put in the new charter, then we can have the >>>>>> discussion about whether it makes sense and who wants to have =20 >>>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>> I was referring to Global HAHA more like the mechanism than the >>>>> solution itself. The aviation industry needs a mechanism where it >>>>> can switch from a HA to another one in a topologically distant >>>>> location (e.g. Madrid to Munich). >>>>> >>>> >>>> could you point out where this requirement is specified in the >>>> requirements document? >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thierry >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 11:46:45 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHMGn-0004VY-Ur; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:41 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHMGm-0004VR-IM for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.grc.nasa.gov ([128.156.11.68]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHMGk-0000ER-Nx for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:40 -0500 Received: from lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.33]) by mx1.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25ECC289 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.112.35]) by lombok-fi.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m0MGkaxc025405; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m0MGkZHe019188; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from apataki.grc.nasa.gov ([127.0.0.1])by localhost (apataki.grc.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)with ESMTP id ZPfYhykTlI2V; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (gr2134391.grc.nasa.gov [139.88.44.123])by apataki.grc.nasa.gov (NASA GRC TCPD 8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m0MGkVlX019165;Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:46:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by drpepper.grc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 501)id 1E655140C4; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:45:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:45:56 -0500 From: weddy@grc.nasa.gov To: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Message-ID: <20080122164555.GB2167@grc.nasa.gov> References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco .com> <603D1AC3-99C5-49B3-AB39-2628626906A2@it.uc3m.es> <0D090F1E0F5536449C7E6527AFFA280A0537C00C@XCH-NW-8V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> <8834DA59-8A73-4814-88F4-C75DF6D010BE@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8834DA59-8A73-4814-88F4-C75DF6D010BE@it.uc3m.es> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-imss-version: 2.046 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:99.90000 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Cc: mext@ietf.org, Julien Laganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: weddy@grc.nasa.gov List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:59:17PM +0100, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > > So, it is explicitly noted that HAs need to be redundant, so this is clear > > However, this does NOT directly imply having globally distributed HAs in > different sites. I mean, just having multiple HAs in the same site would > cover this requirement.(the site could be globally distributed, though, but > still a single site) I think I wrote most of that text, and Marcelo's understanding of it matches exactly with what I was trying to say. Whether or not handoff of HA responsibilities for MNPs is needed between different countries' navigation service providers is really an operational decision to be made amongst the operators of the air navigation services (ICAO), and I haven't personally seen clear direction from them on that yet. I know there is a plan to obtain a large IPv6 block in ICAO's name, but the sub-division and management of that block isn't clear to me yet: - (a) Will it be divyed up into smaller blocks given to each country? or (b) Will each aircraft simply be given an MNP out of the large internationally-managed block? - Will the MNPs be assigned such that they aggregate somehow (at national lines like "owner's home country" or "airframe's home country, or at a regional level like "home airport", etc.) - etc. These decisions help to determine whether transfer of HA duties is needed. For instance if option (a) is selected, the country that owns the MNP may always operate the HA, but if (b) is selected, then the HA used may be dynamic. Operational details of how an IPv6 air traffic control network is managed play heavily into the technology selection. > So, i am worried by your comment that this is needed, because this is not > what i understood from the draft > > Maybe this is exactly the type of precisions that would benefit from the > f2f discussion in the meeting I think so. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 12:11:59 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHMfD-0002a2-OV; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:11:55 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHMfC-0002Zl-Ik for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:11:54 -0500 Received: from mail2.azairenet.com ([207.47.15.6]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHMfC-0002dU-3C for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:11:54 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([98.207.82.216]) by mail2.azairenet.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:11:52 -0800 Message-ID: <479623C9.4030208@azairenet.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:11:37 -0800 From: Vijay Devarapalli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2008 17:11:52.0866 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2152020:01C85D19] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Pascal, The MEXT charter already talks about NEMO route optimization. The current approach, as I understand, is to first collect the requirements for the three use cases we have identified and then figure out if we need one or multiple solutions. Global HAHA (draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-02.txt) is one of the solutions addressing a specific problem (moving the sessions for a mobile router from one HA to another HA in a different geographic location). Yes it was on high on the NEMO list, but not in the MEXT list. Lets try to complete the work on requirements ASAP. Then we will know what solutions we might need to solve NEMO route optimization. Sounds good? Vijay Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > Hi Marcelo: > > Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on route > optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the list at > NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? > > Pascal > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >> Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >> To: mext@ietf.org >> Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Following the procedure we described for the rechartering >> process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be >> extended if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the >> merits and the needs for the different items, in case you want to. >> >> After that, we will ask you to provide >> us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered >> based on the priority of the work. Based on that, the >> discussion we had, on the other expressions of interests we >> had during this whole process, we will decide which items to >> propose to the AD to include in our charter. >> It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a >> few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide >> what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on >> these elements. >> >> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate >> mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of >> the discussion of each item clearly. >> >> Regards, Julien and marcelo >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From akstcadvdatamnsdgs@advdata.com Tue Jan 22 14:35:15 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHOtu-0005Fo-NE; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:35:14 -0500 Received: from 45.89.199.85.ediscom.de ([85.199.89.45] helo=angi.rftonline.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHOtt-0007Ir-La; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:35:14 -0500 Received: from [85.199.89.45] by mail.acomhosting.com; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:45:00 +0100 From: "Kurt Odonnell" To: Subject: Re: activities they Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:45:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01c85d37$a7ceee00$2d59c755@akstcadvdatamnsdgs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Our products are all onsale Have a look now http://theasdpoee.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 15:42:18 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHPwf-0008V2-QL; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:42:09 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHPwe-0008Ug-Ih for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:42:08 -0500 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHPwc-0006ai-Ow for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:42:08 -0500 Received: from localhost (webcartero01.uc3m.es [163.117.136.131])by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6525328450;Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:42:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from 47.45.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es(47.45.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.217.45.47]) by webcartero01.uc3m.es(Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:41:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20080122214158.qqjrbavf0g4gc8co@webcartero01.uc3m.es> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:41:58 +0100 From: MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN To: Vijay Devarapalli Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com><479623C9.4030208@azairenet.com> In-Reply-To: <479623C9.4030208@azairenet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.4) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-26.1096 TC:1F TRN:46 TV:5.0.1023(15684.001) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: JulienLaganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Vijay Devarapalli dijo: > Hi Pascal, > > The MEXT charter already talks about NEMO route optimization. The > current approach, as I understand, is to first collect the > requirements for the three use cases we have identified and then > figure out if we need one or multiple solutions. > > Global HAHA (draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-02.txt) is one of the > solutions addressing a specific problem (moving the sessions for > a mobile router from one HA to another HA in a different > geographic location). Yes it was on high on the NEMO list, but not > in the MEXT list. > > Lets try to complete the work on requirements ASAP. Then we will > know what solutions we might need to solve NEMO route > optimization. Sounds good? FWIW, this is the work that we are hoping to start in the interim meeting Regards, marcelo > > Vijay > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >> Hi Marcelo: >> >> Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on route >> optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the list at >> NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? >> >> Pascal >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] Sent: lundi >>> 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >>> To: mext@ietf.org >>> Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Following the procedure we described for the rechartering process, >>> we will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended if the >>> discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and the needs >>> for the different items, in case you want to. >>> >>> After that, we will ask you to provide >>> us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered based on >>> the priority of the work. Based on that, the discussion we had, on >>> the other expressions of interests we had during this whole >>> process, we will decide which items to propose to the AD to include >>> in our charter. >>> It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a few >>> items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide what's in >>> and what's left for the next rechartering based on these elements. >>> >>> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate mail >>> for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the >>> discussion of each item clearly. >>> >>> Regards, Julien and marcelo >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > -- ---- MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN WebCartero Universidad Carlos III de Madrid _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From john@dpktech.com Tue Jan 22 17:18:20 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHRRj-0003EO-K4; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:18:19 -0500 Received: from [124.254.176.9] (helo=somsponge) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHRRi-0005Bi-EY; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:18:19 -0500 Received: from [124.254.176.9] by dpktech.com.mail11.psmtp.com; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:16:54 +0900 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:16:54 +0900 From: "Lula Esparza" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.3) Business Reply-To: john@dpktech.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <963570481.79975134485342@dpktech.com> To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Train Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:16:54 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 popular EDs on sale now http://nurtuous.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 22 22:08:16 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHVyC-0001XN-Lv; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:08:08 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHVyB-0001Vz-GI for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:08:07 -0500 Received: from sd-1637.dedibox.fr ([88.191.18.91]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHVyA-0007pk-O2 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:08:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sd-1637.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB196A3C1B for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:08:05 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at sd-1637.dedibox.fr Received: from sd-1637.dedibox.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sd-1637.dedibox.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXzrIZ5TAL4I for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:08:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.0.1.19] (jules.nautilus6.org [203.178.138.2]) by sd-1637.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E840A3BCE for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:07:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4796AF84.6030708@hongo.wide.ad.jp> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:07:48 +0900 From: Sebastien Decugis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 Subject: [MEXT] [RFC3775 changes] More details for (K)-flag handling X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Section, sub-section and paragraph involved: 6.1.7. / Key Management Mobility Capability (K) 6.1.8. / Key Management Mobility Capability (K) OLD TEXT: -- NEW TEXT: If IKE is used and the remote peer's IKE session does not support surviving movement, then the local IKE component SHOULD discard the IKE session. Motivation: Unless both HA and MN support the capability of migrating the IKE session endpoints, this session will be broken after MN moves. This sometimes result in a long interruption of upper-layer flow, occurring at any time. See [1] for detailed explanation. By forcing the IKE session to be destroyed after movement, this interruption is always reduced to a short delay. A better solution would be to make the support of IKE session migration mandatory, and to deprecate the (K) flag in the BU/BA messages. [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sdecugis-mext-kbit-issues-00.txt Your comments are obviously welcome :) Seb. -- Sebastien Decugis http://www.nautilus6.org _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 23 00:05:57 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHXnz-0008KU-LN; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:05:43 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHXnx-0008KO-Ae for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:05:41 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.185]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHXnw-00024n-Jd for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:05:41 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so2225695rvb.49 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:05:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:in-reply-to:subject:references:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc:x-mailer; bh=8qOa1pAtXCB+16PS8i42QV8UmEcNjj4qJe7ypoSQq9Y=; b=O80zhYNRQOsBBoTfZKted71HzAHPaEFmdYiFbhWzqAgrwD/ZSPNv2y1zivh02eU2GL9nZj+VUYuHnWVYxAWAQSDIIOr/Z8EbLeYItgdWMYwqhFkQigUb8ouQ0q4HCw1Pn/BiFWwg+6HBhIXpjX7RZQR1DPWDhWTlfcTN46SOZQE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:in-reply-to:subject:references:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc:x-mailer; b=DtRILuQbO3eWaEBQ1S2HCxeI2HtjWkvp+MVXsF+wQkhElc0xphs5woz6z2x6aCK438ylHTafPZOXjZYjbH7m+k4nqbINY2QS2ZO0g5YDZIm49iYXnJQb6dPXF2pkvwdCsDajOc80Z9xbYEamZD+DvRAshTkDK5/71FS15ybtyEU= Received: by 10.141.99.4 with SMTP id b4mr6026230rvm.40.1201064721363; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:05:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?203.178.139.168? ( [203.178.139.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l32sm104591rvb.2.2008.01.22.21.05.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:05:20 -0800 (PST) From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA To: MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN In-Reply-To: <20080122214158.qqjrbavf0g4gc8co@webcartero01.uc3m.es> Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com><479623C9.4030208@azairenet.com> <20080122214158.qqjrbavf0g4gc8co@webcartero01.uc3m.es> Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:05:17 +0900 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3a4bc66230659131057bb68ed51598f8 Cc: mext@ietf.org, JulienLaganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Marcelo, In general, I support global HAHA. The global HAHA solves several issues at once. About the redundancy (local), we took the several parts of HAHA for HA reliability work. Other features such as the global redundancy, RO, and multihoming are still not yet addressed. I expect that we discuss these in the interim meeting next month. I want WG chairs to clarify what is the relationship between the interim meeting and this re-charter process? If we see the need of some RO work in the interim meeting, is that item considered as a new item? regards ryuji On 2008/01/23, at 5:41, MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN wrote: > Vijay Devarapalli dijo: > >> Hi Pascal, >> >> The MEXT charter already talks about NEMO route optimization. The >> current approach, as I understand, is to first collect the >> requirements for the three use cases we have identified and then >> figure out if we need one or multiple solutions. >> >> Global HAHA (draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-02.txt) is one of the >> solutions addressing a specific problem (moving the sessions for >> a mobile router from one HA to another HA in a different >> geographic location). Yes it was on high on the NEMO list, but not >> in the MEXT list. >> >> Lets try to complete the work on requirements ASAP. Then we will >> know what solutions we might need to solve NEMO route >> optimization. Sounds good? > > FWIW, this is the work that we are hoping to start in the interim > meeting > Regards, marcelo > > >> >> Vijay >> >> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >>> Hi Marcelo: >>> >>> Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on >>> route >>> optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the >>> list at >>> NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? >>> >>> Pascal >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] Sent: >>>> lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >>>> To: mext@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >>>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> Following the procedure we described for the rechartering >>>> process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended >>>> if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and the >>>> needs for the different items, in case you want to. >>>> >>>> After that, we will ask you to provide >>>> us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered based >>>> on the priority of the work. Based on that, the discussion we >>>> had, on the other expressions of interests we had during this >>>> whole process, we will decide which items to propose to the AD to >>>> include in our charter. >>>> It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a >>>> few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide >>>> what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on >>>> these elements. >>>> >>>> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate mail >>>> for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the >>>> discussion of each item clearly. >>>> >>>> Regards, Julien and marcelo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> >> > > > > -- > ---- > MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN > WebCartero > Universidad Carlos III de Madrid > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From monomeriytwhv@newmellefire.org Wed Jan 23 08:58:19 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHg7P-0006BW-8w for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:58:19 -0500 Received: from chello087207192043.chello.pl ([87.207.192.43]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHg7O-0007Zh-OE for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:58:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 37598 invoked from network); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:58:42 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO newmellefire.org) (148.232.22.164) by news.pse.pl with SMTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:58:41 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain (mysonpainting.com [25.133.68.118]) by newmellefire.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id STmFOeKk441239 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:58:40 +0100 Message-Id: <408485387870.STmFOeKk441239@659065.mysonpainting.com> Received: from phpmailer ([127.0.0.1]) by mysonpainting.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:58:40 +0100 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:58:40 +0100 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "monomeri" Subject: moyut X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: phpmailer [version 1.54] Reply-To: monomeriytwhv@newmellefire.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 http://www.bigstrutslive.com/ Take ADVANTAGE! Gucci, Chanel, Prada & More, -60% OFF, Limited TIME Offer, FREE SHIPPING on ALL From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 23 09:09:49 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgIJ-0004lR-BH; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:09:35 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgII-0004lM-BW for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:09:34 -0500 Received: from smtp4.int-evry.fr ([157.159.10.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgIG-0008LC-8g for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:09:34 -0500 Received: from smtp2.int-evry.fr (smtp2.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.45]) by smtp4.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB403508AD for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:09:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from pasargades.int-evry.fr (pasargades.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.88]) by smtp2.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2A13ED7E2 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:09:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from Pat5056 (lor-chaouchi.int-evry.fr [157.159.103.22]) by pasargades.int-evry.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112043FC9D for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:09:30 +0100 (CET) From: "Hakima Chaouchi" To: References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <479623C9.4030208@azairenet.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:06:11 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01c85dc9$1ba643f0$16679f9d@Pat5056> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: <479623C9.4030208@azairenet.com> Thread-Index: AchdHbCyNGxhLzxRSnG1ORAM67JYVQAq0//w X-int-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-int-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-int-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-int-MailScanner-From: hakima.chaouchi@int-evry.fr X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6640e3bbe8a4d70c4469bcdcbbf0921d Subject: [MEXT] CFP: Mobile and Wireless Network Security X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org **************************************************************************** ** We apologize in advance if you receive multiple copies of this CFP. **************************************************************************** ** CALL FOR PAPER -- MWNS 2008 Mobile and Wireless Networks Security Workshop Co-located with Networking 2008 May 5-9, 2008, Singapore. http://www.ntu.edu.sg/sce/networking2008/MWNS08.pdf *Keynote by Charles E. Perkins*, Nokia Research Center* * --------------------------------------------- Network security being for many years addressed in wired networks, it becomes more and more challenging in mobile and wireless networks since those environ- ments are widely open and accessible. In this context, mobile and wireless terminals and communication are more vulnerable than wired terminals and networks to different attacks such as denial of service, man in the middle, hijacking, spoofing, etc... In addition, they have less resources which is a real problem in security solution design. This poses new challenges in a sense that we need to design secure and robust solution and light enough to be supported by those wireless and mobile terminals and communications. Different wireless and mobile technologies are available today such as RFID, Wifi, Wimax, 3G, etc... promising the deployment of a variety of services for mobile users. However, security needs to be robust enough in order for the user to trust the services offered on top of those technologies. Other techno- logies such as ad hoc or sensor networks are also very interesting for new type of services, but they also need to prove that security level is high enough to support user services. Related to these hot topics, a keynote will be given by Charles E. Perkins, Research Fellow Mobility & Internet Protocols at Nokia Research Center. C.E. Perkins has been actively participating to IETF standardization and authored standards-track documents. He authored and edited books on Mobile IP and Ad Hoc Networking. This workshop is seeking original research works related to security in wireless and mobile networks. It addresses and is not limited to these topics: - Security in wireless PAN, LAN, MAN, RAN - Security in Mobile networks (2G, 3G, 4G...) - Security in IP Mobility networks - Security in ad hoc networks - Security in sensor/RFID networks - Fault tolerance and Self-healing - Security policies and models - Security of wireless and mobile terminals (smart cards, biometry... ) - Privacy, anonymity, and tracking - Identity management - AAA - ... The authors are invited to submit papers to mwns2008@int-edu.eu following Net- working 2008 format. Best accepted papers will be published in Annals of Telecommunications inter- national journal. ----------------------------------------------------- *Important dates:* - Full Paper submission: *February 15th 2008* - Acceptance Notification: March 15th 2008 - Camera ready: March 30th 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- *Workshop Chairs: *M. Maknavicius and H. Chaouchi - TELECOM & Management Sud- Paris, France *Technical Program Chair: *O. Heen, Thomson R&D, France *Technical Program Committee:* K. Al Agha, LRI, France N. Alonistioti, Univ. of Pireus, Greece J. Araujo, Alcatel-Lucent, France J.W. Atwood, Concordia University, Canada F. Bader, CTTC, Spain A.-L. Beylot, ENSEEIHT, France A. Bouabdallah, UTC, France H. Chaouchi, TELECOM & Management SudParis, France I. Chrisment, Nancy University, France V. Friderikos, Centre for Telecommunication Research of London, UK I. Ganchev, University of Limerick, Ireland M. Gerlach, Fraunhofer Fokus, Germany W. Haddad, Ericsson, Sweden A. Hecker, ENST, France O. Heen, Thomson R&D, France J. Leneutre, ENST, France M. Maknavicius, TELECOM & Management SudParis, France K. Masmoudi, Cyber Networks, France A. Mellouk, University Paris 12, France M. Minier, INSA-Lyon, France H. Moustafa, France Telecom, France P. Muhlethaler, INRIA, France J.M. Nogueira, UFMG, Brazil M. O'Droma, University of Limerick, Ireland O. Rojas, Instituto Tecnologico de Jiquilpan, Mexico P. Schoo, DoCoMo Euro-Labs, Germany A. Serhrouchni, ENST, France _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From akstcalphabetsuitemnsdgs@alphabetsuite.com Wed Jan 23 09:37:45 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgjY-0003iw-Uh; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:37:44 -0500 Received: from 59.121.55.210.guam.net ([121.55.210.59] helo=imk-apwerhnvipw.guam.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHgjX-0000Su-BW; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:37:44 -0500 Received: from [121.55.210.59] by inbound.alphabetsuite.com.netsolmail.net; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:47:34 -0800 Message-ID: <01c85d8b$d5d17350$3bd23779@akstcalphabetsuitemnsdgs> From: "Freddie Tracy" To: Subject: Re: neighborhoods Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:47:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 All of our Med;s are onsale Have a look now http://DarylStoutKV.googlepages.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 23 10:33:00 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHhau-0005LQ-Jr; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:32:52 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHhat-0005JR-7c for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:32:51 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHhas-0002Uo-KD for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:32:51 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530BF2DECC4;Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:32:49 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:32:47 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-14.8155 TC:1F TRN:40 TV:5.0.1023(15686.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Cc: Julien Laganier Subject: [MEXT] MEXT interim meeting - 7,8 feb - Status Update X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Some update information about the interim meeting. So far, several people interested in the aviation case for nemo RO will be attending to the meeting, so it seems that this is one of the topics that we will focus the work on. The agenda is somehow loose so far, but the goals for the meeting would be: - First, try to make sure that we have a common understanding of the requirements. The idea would be to try to wrap up the current draft and try to reach a stable version of the requirements. this may take us the first half day or so. - Second, we will start exploring the solution space for the aviation case. The idea here is to make an open discussion and try to figure out possible solution approaches that fullfills the needs of the aviation community. This is great opportunity to do so, cause we will have people from the aviation community that will be able to give us feedback whether about the differnet solutions approaches and make sure that the requirements express al their needs. Besides, it seems possible that we will have some people from the car community, so we will do some work on this area. Certainly we will try to move forward with the requirements, but it is not clear to me at this stage if we will explore solution space for this case, this will depend on the interest of the people that are finally coming. So, at this stage, i would like to ask people that are coming to prepare for this discussion. At the minimum, i would request people that are coming to read the requirements draft, since this will be the first focus of the discussion. These are: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-aero-reqs-00.txt http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-01 In addition, you may want to read: RFC4888 RFC4889 In addition, if people want to present some ideas about the solution space, they are welcome to do so. We would really prefer to have presentations about solution space analysis, rather than presentations of particular solutions. Finally, i would ask people that are planning to attend to register in: http://enjambre.it.uc3m.es/mext/ (this is important for me to properly arrange the coffee breaks, so, if you want coffee, please register) Regards, marcelo _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 23 11:13:25 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHiE7-0003Xw-Kl; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:13:23 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHiE6-0003X1-5B for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:13:22 -0500 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHiE5-0004h3-2P for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:13:21 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,239,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="3785350" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2008 17:13:20 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0NGDK97021508; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:13:20 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-332.cisco.com [144.254.231.87]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0NGD2lP006226; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:13:14 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-337.cisco.com ([144.254.231.82]) by xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:13:11 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:13:10 +0100 Message-ID: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512C634@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <479623C9.4030208@azairenet.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering thread-index: AchdGgCrRxMcNYc+SDOEUCUQLGserQAv7nyw From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Vijay Devarapalli" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2008 16:13:11.0376 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9862500:01C85DDA] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3265; t=1201104800; x=1201968800; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Pascal=20Thubert=20(pthubert)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[MEXT]=20Next=20steps=20in=20recharteri ng |Sender:=20; bh=hsCVX1bJ21DEsIqsLBNM7eTizJQeWHstBQIbBHNhtQM=; b=c3L6MAx9j4xmGms60ClHZ9kGx1REjFFMEFYjzZhfIAF5xOgwjqLxVdOUQX 9anoJ+r1kQ7jgs8Y+8Pde1abCUVGBNRTaqZW9oBUpPDv3uR1LYZr0q+5/Cc2 qQn8CkMVuV; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=pthubert@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Vijay: This does sound great and the points made in this thread all sound very reasonable to my hears. I started this because none of the individual mails from Marcelo seemed to refer to that specific topic and I was concerned that it was being set aside. Pascal =20 >-----Original Message----- >From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay.devarapalli@AzaireNet.com]=20 >Sent: mardi 22 janvier 2008 18:12 >To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) >Cc: marcelo bagnulo braun; mext@ietf.org; Julien Laganier >Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering > >Hi Pascal, > >The MEXT charter already talks about NEMO route optimization.=20 >The current approach, as I understand, is to first collect the=20 >requirements for the three use cases we have identified and=20 >then figure out if we need one or multiple solutions. > >Global HAHA (draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-02.txt) is one of=20 >the solutions addressing a specific problem (moving the=20 >sessions for a mobile router from one HA to another HA in a=20 >different geographic location). Yes it was on high on the NEMO=20 >list, but not in the MEXT list. > >Lets try to complete the work on requirements ASAP. Then we=20 >will know what solutions we might need to solve NEMO route=20 >optimization. Sounds good? > >Vijay > >Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >> Hi Marcelo: >>=20 >> Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is=20 >work on route=20 >> optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on=20 >the list=20 >> at NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? >>=20 >> Pascal >> =20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >>> Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >>> To: mext@ietf.org >>> Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >>> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Following the procedure we described for the rechartering=20 >process, we=20 >>> will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended if the=20 >>> discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and the=20 >needs for=20 >>> the different items, in case you want to. >>> >>> After that, we will ask you to provide us an ordered list of the=20 >>> items we should work on, ordered based on the priority of the work.=20 >>> Based on that, the discussion we had, on the other expressions of=20 >>> interests we had during this whole process, we will decide which=20 >>> items to propose to the AD to include in our charter. >>> It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a few=20 >>> items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide=20 >what's in and=20 >>> what's left for the next rechartering based on these elements. >>> >>> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a=20 >separate mail for=20 >>> each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the=20 >discussion of=20 >>> each item clearly. >>> >>> Regards, Julien and marcelo >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mugnum@rpsone.com Wed Jan 23 11:46:23 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHik3-0000ZA-LV; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:46:23 -0500 Received: from [190.25.228.164] (helo=corporat190-025228164.sta.etb.net.co) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHik2-0006oL-4F; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:46:23 -0500 Received: from [190.25.228.164] by alt1.aspmx.l.google.com; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:44:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01c85db5$60874280$a4e419be@mugnum> From: "Rodger Avery" To: Subject: Planet Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:44:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:44:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-2"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 We can get you hard as a rock http://moveakit.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 23 11:53:28 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHiqn-0000OD-26; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:53:21 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHiql-0000O3-M0 for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:53:19 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHiqk-0006Rs-UA for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:53:19 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.225])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175A82DF9B4;Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:47:07 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <7BCC7426-2EC9-48C8-9A25-AD71A58E7B74@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: RYUJI WAKIKAWA In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:47:06 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0512BDC7@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco .com><479623C9.4030208@azairenet.com> <20080122214158.qqjrbavf0g4gc8co@webcartero01.uc3m.es> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-29.7669 TC:1F TRN:63 TV:5.0.1023(15686.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 3971661e40967acfc35f708dd5f33760 Cc: JulienLaganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org El 23/01/2008, a las 6:05, RYUJI WAKIKAWA escribi=F3: > Marcelo, > > In general, I support global HAHA. The global HAHA solves several =20 > issues at once. > About the redundancy (local), we took the several parts of HAHA for =20= > HA reliability work. > Other features such as the global redundancy, RO, and multihoming =20 > are still not yet addressed. > I expect that we discuss these in the interim meeting next month. > > I want WG chairs to clarify what is the relationship between the =20 > interim meeting and this re-charter process? so far, none > > If we see the need of some RO work in the interim meeting, is that =20 > item considered as a new item? > not sure i understand, we are already chartered to work on RO solution =20= space, at least for the aviation case. So i don't see that we need any =20= form of rechartering for working in ro. Of course, as in any discussion, we may end up figuring out that some =20= work is needed in some area and that we may need to add new stuff in =20 the charter to do that, but this is not related to the interim but a =20 general feature of any wg related discussion afaict. regards, marcelo > regards > ryuji > > > On 2008/01/23, at 5:41, MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN wrote: > >> Vijay Devarapalli dijo: >> >>> Hi Pascal, >>> >>> The MEXT charter already talks about NEMO route optimization. The >>> current approach, as I understand, is to first collect the >>> requirements for the three use cases we have identified and then >>> figure out if we need one or multiple solutions. >>> >>> Global HAHA (draft-thubert-nemo-global-haha-02.txt) is one of the >>> solutions addressing a specific problem (moving the sessions for >>> a mobile router from one HA to another HA in a different >>> geographic location). Yes it was on high on the NEMO list, but not >>> in the MEXT list. >>> >>> Lets try to complete the work on requirements ASAP. Then we will >>> know what solutions we might need to solve NEMO route >>> optimization. Sounds good? >> >> FWIW, this is the work that we are hoping to start in the interim =20 >> meeting >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >>> >>> Vijay >>> >>> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: >>>> Hi Marcelo: >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot for all those emails. What I fail to see is work on =20= >>>> route >>>> optimization for NEMO. For instance, global HAHA was high on the =20= >>>> list at >>>> NEMO and now it has disappeared. What do you think? >>>> >>>> Pascal >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] Sent: =20 >>>>> lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:09 >>>>> To: mext@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: [MEXT] Next steps in rechartering >>>>> >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> >>>>> Following the procedure we described for the rechartering =20 >>>>> process, we will open now a 10 day period (which can be extended =20= >>>>> if the discussion needs it) for you to discuss the merits and =20 >>>>> the needs for the different items, in case you want to. >>>>> >>>>> After that, we will ask you to provide >>>>> us an ordered list of the items we should work on, ordered based =20= >>>>> on the priority of the work. Based on that, the discussion we =20 >>>>> had, on the other expressions of interests we had during this =20 >>>>> whole process, we will decide which items to propose to the AD =20 >>>>> to include in our charter. >>>>> It should be noted and repeated, that we will only be taking a =20 >>>>> few items (let's say 4 new items) so we will need to decide =20 >>>>> what's in and what's left for the next rechartering based on =20 >>>>> these elements. >>>>> >>>>> In order to organize the discussion, we will send a separate =20 >>>>> mail for each proposed item, so we can follow the threat of the =20= >>>>> discussion of each item clearly. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Julien and marcelo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >>> >> >> >> >> --=20 >> ---- >> MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN >> WebCartero >> Universidad Carlos III de Madrid >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From bamboozlingac8@westradamus.com Wed Jan 23 13:50:12 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHkfs-00005e-Uj for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:50:12 -0500 Received: from cryofrost.starlink.ru ([77.50.37.236]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHkfr-0002cP-Kl for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:50:12 -0500 Received: from [77.50.37.236] by mxmail.register.com; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:50:11 -0800 From: "Audra James" To: Subject: PhallusMassiveTara Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:50:11 -0800 Message-ID: <01c85dad$b9eb7380$ec25324d@bamboozlingac8> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.9 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 KendallBroadErectileorgan http://www.janeoplane.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 23 15:15:19 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHm07-0005Xy-J1; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:15:11 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHlzz-0005Qb-71; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:15:03 -0500 Received: from ns1.neustar.com ([2001:503:c779:1a::9c9a:108a]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHlzy-0003Yl-JF; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:15:03 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns1.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EA026E3F; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JHlzy-0000dC-9N; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:15:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:15:02 -0500 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30 Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: [MEXT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF. Title : Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack Hosts and Routers (DSMIPv6) Author(s) : H. Soliman Filename : draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2008-1-23 The current Mobile IPv6 and NEMO specifications support IPv6 only. This specification extends those standards to allow the registration of IPv4 addresses and prefixes, respectively, and the transport of both IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the tunnel to the HA. This specification also allows the Mobile Node to roam over both IPv6 and IPv4, including the case where Network Address Translation is present on the path between the mobile node and its home agent. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-1-23142046.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-1-23142046.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --NextPart-- From dgewater575@berliner-gasthausmission.de Wed Jan 23 18:50:20 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHpMK-0001mY-7b for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:50:20 -0500 Received: from [81.88.255.2] (helo=[81.88.255.2]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHpMJ-0007cQ-Cg for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:50:19 -0500 Received: (qmail 56789 invoked from network); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:50:15 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO berliner-gasthausmission.de) (49.251.35.181) by bmuag.ch with SMTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:50:14 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain (belfortfurniture.com [74.38.90.252]) by berliner-gasthausmission.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id hIiooLUc874843 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:50:13 +0100 Message-Id: <314550093725.hIiooLUc874843@922764.belfortfurniture.com> Received: from phpmailer ([127.0.0.1]) by belfortfurniture.com with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:50:13 +0100 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:50:13 +0100 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "dgewater" Subject: diamrolr X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: phpmailer [version 1.54] Reply-To: dgewater575@berliner-gasthausmission.de MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 http://www.mgeaioaw.com/ Thicker, larger, wider, longer, YES From akstcalissmamnsdgs@alissma.com Wed Jan 23 22:48:21 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHt4f-000339-0A; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:48:21 -0500 Received: from [211.54.8.86] (helo=[211.54.8.86]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHt4b-0004dR-Ci; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:48:20 -0500 Received: from [211.54.8.86] by alissma.com; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:58:13 +0900 From: "Margarita Norris" To: Subject: Re: the report says. Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:58:13 +0900 Message-ID: <01c85e88$c75d41c0$560836d3@akstcalissmamnsdgs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Enjoy our prices and save with us. Improve your health and budget condition purchasing high quality med s with Canadian Pharmacy online drugstore which offers medications at very low prices. http://basicoften.com From bernadetteh@thecomedyoflife.com Wed Jan 23 23:41:17 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHttt-0008T7-7p; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:41:17 -0500 Received: from [119.11.105.2] (helo=comp) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHttr-0005gF-Uk; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:41:17 -0500 Received: from [119.11.105.2] by relay.tsanet.it; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:39:50 +1000 Message-ID: <01c85e96$f941bf00$02690b77@bernadetteh> From: "Jeremy Chappell" To: Subject: agency for China or Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:39:50 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 All kinds of replicas on sale now See us at http://assikeii.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 24 03:29:56 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHxSu-0007DL-9k; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:29:40 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHxSo-0007D1-V5 for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:29:35 -0500 Received: from ws000774.tietoenator.com ([193.12.181.129]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHxSo-00030I-I7 for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:29:34 -0500 X-AuditID: c10cb581-00001250000006ec-b5-47984c6e1f50 Received: from camaro.eu.tieto.com ([192.176.143.43]) by ws000774.tietoenator.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:29:34 +0100 Received: from corvette.eu.tieto.com ([192.176.143.143]) by camaro.eu.tieto.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:29:32 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:29:31 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: a few comments on draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00 Thread-Index: AcheYz44eCanIfzvRzCroMZ1NdmPZg== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2008 08:29:32.0648 (UTC) FILETIME=[3EAEDE80:01C85E63] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Subject: [MEXT] a few comments on draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org A few comments on draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt o section 2.3.1, para 1, line 10: suggestion to change "it will be tunneled" to "the home agent will tunnel the packet" (just to ease the reading first time). o section 2.3.1, para 4, line 1: I think "routing header" should be "destination option". o section 4.2, para 2, line 3: it does not read right that an IPv4=20 address can be compared to an IPv4 address in an IPv6 header. =20 The packet diagram in the A paragraph below indicates the=20 IPv4 CoA option is meant. o section 4.2, Binding Acknowledgement packet: Remove the=20 "V6HOA (IPv6 home address)", a left over from previous revision,=20 and instead insert "ESP-header", similar to the what is done in the binding update packet above. o section 4.3, para 1, line 10: The parameter NATKATIMEOUT is (in section 6) given the default value 110 seconds. However,=20 RFC 3948 defining NAT keepalives, suggest 20 seconds. Not clear=20 the reason for the difference. o section 4.4.1 and section 4.5.1: somewhere in the text note, that ESP tunnel header may be present. o section 7: Change "Neilsen" to "Nielsen" (two places). Christian _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From twistersjt6@eklectika.net Thu Jan 24 05:42:37 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHzXZ-0006ts-63 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:42:37 -0500 Received: from [89.37.177.151] (helo=chuchy) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHzXY-0007hF-00 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:42:37 -0500 Received: from [89.37.177.151] by m1.dnsix.com; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:42:35 +0200 From: "Isabella Guzman" To: Subject: PenisFatOrval Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:42:35 +0200 Message-ID: <01c85e86$9811ef80$97b12559@twistersjt6> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 KoryCockLargish http://www.janeoplane.com From ettoslug569@needtogetadate.com Thu Jan 24 06:45:49 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI0Wj-0001TA-B9 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:45:49 -0500 Received: from adsl-dyn8.78-99-159.t-com.sk ([78.99.159.8]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI0Wi-0000of-QM for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:45:49 -0500 Received: (qmail 70027 invoked from network); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:45:48 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO needtogetadate.com) (165.228.134.111) by with SMTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:45:47 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain ( [92.15.202.138]) by needtogetadate.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id BfuizWIX393653 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:45:46 +0100 Message-Id: <460894360268.BfuizWIX393653@736553.> Received: from phpmailer ([127.0.0.1]) by with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:45:46 +0100 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:45:46 +0100 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "ettoslug" Subject: etsym X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: phpmailer [version 1.54] Reply-To: ettoslug569@needtogetadate.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 http://qygeiapa.com/ Finally, an enhancement product that WORKS, and is 100% safe. From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 24 07:38:48 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI1Lj-0004qO-Np; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:38:31 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI1Lh-0004pz-SW for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:38:29 -0500 Received: from omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com ([144.140.82.155]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI1Lg-0002EA-Cr for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:38:28 -0500 Received: from oaamta03ps.mx.bigpond.com ([124.190.105.201]) by omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20080124123825.ZCQF14754.omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com@oaamta03ps.mx.bigpond.com> for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:38:25 +0000 Received: from PC20005 ([124.190.105.201]) by oaamta03ps.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20080124123825.MLCF14070.oaamta03ps.mx.bigpond.com@PC20005>; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:38:25 +0000 From: "Hesham Soliman" To: , Subject: RE: [MEXT] a few comments on draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:37:48 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AcheYz44eCanIfzvRzCroMZ1NdmPZgAJqb8g X-RPD-ScanID: Class unknown; VirusThreatLevel unknown, RefID str=0001.0A09020B.479886C1.0002,ss=1,fgs=0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Thanks Christian, since these are not major comments I propose that we handle them with the AD comments. We need to move this draft forward and it would be more efficient to handle them all at the same time. Hesham > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian.Kaas-Petersen@tietoenator.com > [mailto:Christian.Kaas-Petersen@tietoenator.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:30 PM > To: mext@ietf.org > Subject: [MEXT] a few comments on draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00 > > A few comments on draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt > > o section 2.3.1, para 1, line 10: suggestion to change "it will > be tunneled" to "the home agent will tunnel the packet" (just to > ease the reading first time). > > o section 2.3.1, para 4, line 1: I think "routing header" should be > "destination option". > > o section 4.2, para 2, line 3: it does not read right that an IPv4 > address can be compared to an IPv4 address in an IPv6 header. > The packet diagram in the A paragraph below indicates the > IPv4 CoA option is meant. > > o section 4.2, Binding Acknowledgement packet: Remove the > "V6HOA (IPv6 home address)", a left over from previous revision, > and instead insert "ESP-header", similar > to the what is done in the binding update packet above. > > o section 4.3, para 1, line 10: The parameter NATKATIMEOUT is (in > section 6) given the default value 110 seconds. However, > RFC 3948 defining NAT keepalives, suggest 20 seconds. Not clear > the reason for the difference. > > o section 4.4.1 and section 4.5.1: somewhere in the text note, that > ESP tunnel header may be present. > > o section 7: Change "Neilsen" to "Nielsen" (two places). > > Christian > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 24 07:54:13 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI1ar-0003An-Rh; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:54:09 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI1aq-0003Ai-TM for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:54:08 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI1aq-0002kp-By for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:54:08 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.2] (really [66.57.16.220]) by cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20080124125407.WCBI12601.cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com@[192.168.2.2]> for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:54:07 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9014772B-8AD0-4291-B28A-548CD0DBD6B3@lindem.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Acee Lindem Subject: Re: [MEXT] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:53:54 -0500 To: mext@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Hesham, et al, Here are my comments. I have some other more subjective editorial comments which I'll send offline. - General - Consistent capitalization of home agent. Use "Home Agent" or "home agent" throughout. If "home agent" is chosen, the other form may be still used in cases where you are refering to a specific packet or field. - General - Consistent use of either "0.0.0.0" or the "IPv4 unspecified address". - Abstract - Suggest replacing HA with "home agent". The acronym is expanded out in the next line and the abstract should include a minimum of acronyms. - Page 5, 7th paragraph - Remove "in a secure manner" since this is needed simply to communicate. I'd also suggest replacing "such device" with "the device". - Page 8, 1st paragraph - It says "If this option is not including..." yet it said previously that the option "MUST" be included. Perhaps, the "MUST" should have been a "MAY". - Page 9, second paragraph - Replace "to the IPv4 care-of address." with "in an IPv4 header specifying the IPv4 care-of address as the destination." - Page 10, last figure - Replace "Pref" with "Prefix-Len" to since "Pref" is normally short for "preference". Same comment on page 11. - Page 11, IPv4 home address - It says "should be defended by the home agent". This terminology is usually associated for IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection. What does it mean for IPv4? - Page 13, Pref - Replace "Pref" with "Prefix-Len" to avoid confusion with "preference". Also, allocate this field needs to be 6 bits rather than 5. - Page 14, Refresh Time - Replace "the all 1s" with "0xffffffff". Since this isn't an IP address "the All Ones Address" isn't appropriate. - Page 17, 2nd paragraph - I think NAT detection is wrong here. Replace "IPv4 address in the source address of the IPv6 header" with "IPv4 address of the IPv4 CoA Option described in section 3.1.2." This is correct in section 4.5. - Page 18, Penultimate paragraph - Replace "the all 1s" with "0xffffffff". Since this isn't an IP address "the All Ones Address" isn't appropriate. - Page 20, 4th bullet - It says "mobile node MAY include the IPv4 home...". Yet in section 2.3.1 on the top of page 8, it says "therefore SHOULD NOT include the option...". - Page 21, 2nd paragraph - [DNAv4] is not included in the references. - Page 23, 1st paragraph - I hate to say it, but should this cover the forced encapsulation case? - Page 26, IANA Assignments - Should there be a new registry for TLV-Header encapsulations types? - Page 27, TUNSEC reference - Replace "UPD" with "UDP". Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 24 10:37:38 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI48x-00083h-Qz; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:37:31 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI48w-0007zG-Cc for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:37:30 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI48v-0008Kx-W5 for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:37:30 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id u2so689081uge.46 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:37:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; bh=YB6sG6kpBTjPh5AY+c+ny0E/5BWFrfvZt5FCOcbglA4=; b=wmUublDBfh7C/nZAJunVYAkVq2w5q5dodLVALVrzxktNRgk04lalics/PuCqcZccg24a023qNGAv9qpKCRKMjO1OiW0pIV6NlnmbPdlQh2BJiTnUYePtx3o7jvdlfIgKO0n/R/YPikg2Il8Futm+mJ3fCjC8BJdF1MKSEcyxZno= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender; b=kRgZ6AF2BTLLgDtEf6FcwqWrix9Hvy659CLGKoQq30iV5YTIEx7Ji+AeAUIjf5xOLda8gq8abXq52/gUq2OjIcNxiQIcHscxr32dIeuDAswJ3C+YiQ7myuJZXRF2PjgkfNLv5yvTV0eMw8KXff+CxIsSa4oJrszTs1DCKkrG7Ro= Received: by 10.67.116.7 with SMTP id t7mr2359421ugm.38.1201189049111; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:37:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ubik.local ( [212.119.9.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e1sm5131812ugf.34.2008.01.24.07.37.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:37:28 -0800 (PST) From: Julien Laganier To: mext@ietf.org Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:37:43 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801241637.44811.julien.IETF@laposte.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: Subject: [MEXT] [WGLC] draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org =46olks, Hereby we're issuing a WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt.=20 It is a short, one-week WGLC as the document has been previously WGLC'd,=20 it will last until January 31st. We kindly ask the WG to review the=20 last changes that were made and provide comments if needed. If you have no comments and think the document is ready to be submitted=20 to IESG, please do send a note stating that to the WG ML. Additional information about the document is below: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Title=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0: Mobile IPv6= support for dual stack Hosts and=20 Routers (DSMIPv6) =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Author(s)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0: H. Soliman =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Filename=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0: draft-ietf-mext-n= emo-v4traversal-00.txt =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Pages=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0: 29 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Date=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0: 2008-1-23 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0 =A0The current Mobile IPv6 and NEMO specifications support IPv6 only. =A0 =A0This specification extends those standards to allow the registration =A0 =A0of IPv4 addresses and prefixes, respectively, and the transport of =A0 =A0both IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the tunnel to the HA. This =A0 =A0specification also allows the Mobile Node to roam over both IPv6 and =A0 =A0IPv4, including the case where Network Address Translation is present =A0 =A0on the path between the mobile node and its home agent. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt Thank you for your support. =2D-julien and marcelo, MEXT chairs _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From nemo-2000@caramail.com Thu Jan 24 15:19:35 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI8Xv-0002ZA-Gs for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:19:35 -0500 Received: from esa146.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.20.120.146] helo=dom) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI8Xu-0002GV-4z for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:19:34 -0500 Content-Return: allowed X-Mailer: CME-V6.5.4.3; MSN Received: (qmail 8398 by uid 702); Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:19:36 +0100 Message-Id: <20080124101936.8400.qmail@dom> To: Subject: January 74% OFF From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 88b11fc64c1bfdb4425294ef5374ca07
From wagman@okanaganskiresorts.com Thu Jan 24 15:59:48 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI9Aq-00078f-2T; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:59:48 -0500 Received: from bhe201062162245.res-com.wayinternet.com.br ([201.62.162.245] helo=rad) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI9Ao-0003Df-RM; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:59:47 -0500 Received: from [201.62.162.245] by okanaganskiresorts.com.s8b1.psmtp.com; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:58:21 -0300 From: "Sandy Villarreal" To: Subject: Perfume Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:58:21 -0300 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:58:21 -0300 Message-ID: <01c85eb2$b4c41c80$f5a23ec9@wagman> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Enjoy our prices and save with us. Improve your health and budget condition purchasing high quality med s with Canadian Pharmacy online drugstore which offers medications at very low prices. After all our NEW pharmacy I-net page is accomplished!!! http://basicoften.com From HoraceseverSalazar@rockymountainnews.com Thu Jan 24 16:40:33 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI9oH-0000JV-Ax; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:40:33 -0500 Received: from eu83-213-43-228.clientes.euskaltel.es ([83.213.43.228] helo=dell170l.hogar) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JI9oG-0004Mw-2x; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:40:33 -0500 Message-ID: <04cf01c85ed1$b7a5eea0$1e00a8c0@DELL170L> From: "Johnathan Aguilar" To: , =20
Join the Thousands of = Americans GETTING=20 OUT OF DEBT!
 
Be DEBT FREE in as little = as 12=20 MONTHS.
 
Please visit the link = below and get a=20 free debt consultation today. NO OBLIGATION!
 
 ------=_NextPart_000_04CB_01C85ED1.B7A5EEA0-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 24 19:16:37 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JICF8-0004RN-9G; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:16:26 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JICF7-0004RI-KH for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:16:25 -0500 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.232]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JICF7-0005Or-9C for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:16:25 -0500 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id n1so341809nzf.4 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:16:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=hSRx7+lbdEB/WGeM/B0Ltr6hov7iepYaIFI3YLw5dyg=; b=nR9K+OVIfroA2MLlj9idbYirZdJA/uDLizNV13OtUcs21UFSV0UhzggIsl9hVCcVlmPa4Ez1JwhUgUstDYaB88hBpeRMgmADAEWqjD9/574C4DoD9MfI4GC00OXLgdoT+uLApDU5dJ66vvtCdyJworB1H7lPaAduArZebu0UY/w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Yw9ATvcJKeERKYY0t1WbrBzmtQ03OprmzEqxmyj4ylEGTMUmMjNIj8cqrGD3MqcaNu5/OXhSygfSxrDgIWlPGy7NXoIkg7i6bPVPoCLTvcq/bvRomUwY5nvyZh+FKCLH8tIYgbyOuTtg2D+F++/ardc2axJJ230OaoDFr13jSXk= Received: by 10.110.42.13 with SMTP id p13mr876854tip.34.1201220183413; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:16:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.110.11.1 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:16:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1d38a3350801241616v1d033ab5l6f2c8eaf59ad0f63@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:16:23 +0800 From: "Hui Deng" To: "Julien Laganier" Subject: Re: [MEXT] [WGLC] draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt In-Reply-To: <200801241637.44811.julien.IETF@laposte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200801241637.44811.julien.IETF@laposte.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org no comments and think the document is ready to be submitted to IESG -Hui 2008/1/24, Julien Laganier : > Folks, > > Hereby we're issuing a WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt. > > It is a short, one-week WGLC as the document has been previously WGLC'd, > it will last until January 31st. We kindly ask the WG to review the > last changes that were made and provide comments if needed. > > If you have no comments and think the document is ready to be submitted > to IESG, please do send a note stating that to the WG ML. > > Additional information about the document is below: > > Title: Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack Hosts and > Routers (DSMIPv6) > Author(s): H. Soliman > Filename: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt > Pages: 29 > Date: 2008-1-23 > > The current Mobile IPv6 and NEMO specifications support IPv6 only. > This specification extends those standards to allow the registration > of IPv4 addresses and prefixes, respectively, and the transport of > both IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the tunnel to the HA. This > specification also allows the Mobile Node to roam over both IPv6 and > IPv4, including the case where Network Address Translation is present > on the path between the mobile node and its home agent. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt > > Thank you for your support. > > --julien and marcelo, MEXT chairs > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 25 10:29:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIQTl-0003NS-Qq; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:28:29 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIQTk-0003NI-Co for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:28:28 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIQTi-0000U8-U4 for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:28:28 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.247])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DE32C3880;Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:28:25 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:28:25 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-3.4311 TC:1F TRN:12 TV:5.0.1023(15690.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: Julien Laganier Subject: [MEXT] Firewall work X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Folks, during last IETF meeting, the DT presented their work and we agreed that people will read the drafts and comment to see if we adopt them as the WG items for this work. I remind you the documents are: - Guidelines for firewall administrators regarding MIPv6 traffic draft-krishnan-mip6-firewall-admin-02 - Guidelines for firewall vendors regarding MIPv6 traffic draft-krishnan-mip6-firewall-vendor-02 Please read and comment so we can figure out if we adopt these docs or what to do. Regards, marcelo _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 25 13:41:58 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JITUj-0004ve-TT; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:41:41 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JITUh-0004V5-1U; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:41:39 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com ([47.129.242.57]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JITUg-0001Ch-JB; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:41:38 -0500 Received: from zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com (zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com [47.103.123.71]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id m0PIfZV08836; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:41:35 GMT X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:41:31 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4799F913.5000708@piuha.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Binding Revocation Applicability to PMIPv6 Thread-Index: AchfYsdqJKxrtJFqT96XJ0A6xuOHTgAHBIHw References: <477D6C59.202@piuha.net> <019401c84e6d$911df300$9ba36b80@amer.cisco.com> <478B68A9.3020001@piuha.net> <018101c85750$f1efe490$e6706b80@amer.cisco.com> <478C95D4.4010300@piuha.net> <478CD040.2070506@nomadiclab.com> <478D0502.7080507@nomadiclab.com> <478D0F21.4030902@nomadiclab.com> <478E81C5.7050702@azairenet.com> <478E830F.5020901@azairenet.com> <4799F913.5000708@piuha.net> From: "Ahmad Muhanna" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: [MEXT] Binding Revocation Applicability to PMIPv6 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hello Folks, Currently MEXT wg is considering Binding Revocation for IPv6 Mobility as an item for their re-chartering activity. The following is the proposed text for this recharter item: " Binding Revocation for IP Mobility: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Define a binding revocation mechanism for Mobile IPv6 and its extensions. This mechanism can be used by any entity involved in the base Mobile IPv6 protocol or one of its extensions to request its corresponding entity to terminate either one, multiple or all binding cache entries. " As it is obvious, Binding Revocation has a strong usecase and applicability to PMIPv6 and since the PMIPv6 base protocol document is in a very good shape and passed AD review and hopefully after a short time will be sent to IESG, I thought it is appropriate if we can start discussing the PMIPv6 usecase and requirements to Binding Revocation. This is important in order to make sure that all PMIPv6 usecases and requirements are covered by this MEXT work item. I really appreciate your comments and discussion on this topic.=20 The following IETF draft is not a MEXT wg work item, however, has been presented during Chicago MIP6 and Vancouver MEXT meetings and have been discussed extensively on the MIP6 mailing list. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-muhanna-mip6-binding-revocatio n-02.txt Please note that I am ccing MEXT wg mailing list too. Best Regards, Ahmad =20 =20 _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From bullitqsrxl@adarra.net Fri Jan 25 17:49:46 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIXMo-0008HC-Pi for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:49:46 -0500 Received: from ppp-101-234.33-151.iol.it ([151.33.234.101] helo=ppp-15-235.33-151.iol.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIXMo-0002bH-6t for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:49:46 -0500 Received: (qmail 13500 invoked from network); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:49:46 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO adarra.net) (121.180.21.170) by with SMTP; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:49:45 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain ( [43.174.140.11]) by adarra.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id nyUsDcaQ153866 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:49:44 +0100 Message-Id: <620473840965.nyUsDcaQ153866@400810.> Received: from phpmailer ([127.0.0.1]) by with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:49:44 +0100 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:49:44 +0100 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "bullit" Subject: bulgy X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: phpmailer [version 1.54] Reply-To: bullitqsrxl@adarra.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 http://strutitnow.com/ Free Shipping on all Designer Footwear from Chanel Gucci Prada Dior Ugg From mext-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 25 19:03:26 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIYVr-0006Wy-4o; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:03:11 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIYVq-0006Q9-5f for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:03:10 -0500 Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com ([64.233.178.245] helo=hs-out-2122.google.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIYVp-0000i4-Ll for mext@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:03:10 -0500 Received: by hs-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 54so765355hsz.5 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:03:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=aVIdWhOzVu8GNkNCO7pg1uWaljbfpnrH2FD5Ew+DprM=; b=cIFR7zxHupO7TgUCoAvOPBZFXOuMtMwNITi3J8x9Rs+DCoof5gsGKKefZ+iuvZUishZd931BYWhBMFil9MuxQ6tI3mqspUfkciNtK0u67fCq+zcYbeTGBVucXdP3uU25G0VbE5hcdHGO3I42JIQlhIUjxNJI0P+xnobEBgttTRQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=p377CfbnZr5R5H2e8SMZnPC4KtQCxL0ShozCckMVPFYd67w+nF8BSHciAzzm/aJ4oplmnAt9JK1CmTGd11w2xVVFrvkqbbpmw7YgDNggzd15rO8SNXIUUc68gPqxHdPzqPwbf5ZSXPy6vumx+OGQ8ZyzF3b3BoCKqVq9BtquvF0= Received: by 10.142.222.21 with SMTP id u21mr1676640wfg.189.1201305786501; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:03:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.165.1 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:03:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:03:06 -0500 From: "George Tsirtsis" To: "Hui Deng" Subject: Re: [MEXT] [WGLC] draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt In-Reply-To: <1d38a3350801241616v1d033ab5l6f2c8eaf59ad0f63@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200801241637.44811.julien.IETF@laposte.net> <1d38a3350801241616v1d033ab5l6f2c8eaf59ad0f63@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Cc: mext@ietf.org, Julien Laganier X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Same here. This is ready to go. George On Jan 24, 2008 7:16 PM, Hui Deng wrote: > no comments and think the document is ready to be submitted > to IESG > > -Hui > > 2008/1/24, Julien Laganier : > > > Folks, > > > > Hereby we're issuing a WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt. > > > > It is a short, one-week WGLC as the document has been previously WGLC'd, > > it will last until January 31st. We kindly ask the WG to review the > > last changes that were made and provide comments if needed. > > > > If you have no comments and think the document is ready to be submitted > > to IESG, please do send a note stating that to the WG ML. > > > > Additional information about the document is below: > > > > Title: Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack Hosts and > > Routers (DSMIPv6) > > Author(s): H. Soliman > > Filename: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt > > Pages: 29 > > Date: 2008-1-23 > > > > The current Mobile IPv6 and NEMO specifications support IPv6 only. > > This specification extends those standards to allow the registration > > of IPv4 addresses and prefixes, respectively, and the transport of > > both IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the tunnel to the HA. This > > specification also allows the Mobile Node to roam over both IPv6 and > > IPv4, including the case where Network Address Translation is present > > on the path between the mobile node and its home agent. > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt > > > > Thank you for your support. > > > > --julien and marcelo, MEXT chairs > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From BrigitteinternecineVogt@wikipedia.org Fri Jan 25 22:52:52 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIc68-00081h-13; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:52:52 -0500 Received: from 89-229.3-85.cust.bluewin.ch ([85.3.229.89] helo=alimsfullhouse) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIc67-0003CV-KI; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:52:51 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Twila Landis" To: Subject: Reduce debt with Debt Pros Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:51:58 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_C4FE_01C85FCE.DC446270" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_C4FE_01C85FCE.DC446270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Join the Thousands of Americans GETTING OUT OF DEBT! Be DEBT FREE in as little as 12 MONTHS. Please visit the link below and get a free debt consultation today. NO = OBLIGATION! http://goodhvibe.com.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_C4FE_01C85FCE.DC446270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
Join the Thousands of = Americans GETTING=20 OUT OF DEBT!
 
Be DEBT FREE in as little = as 12=20 MONTHS.
 
Please visit the link = below and get a=20 free debt consultation today. NO OBLIGATION!
 
http://goodhvibe.com.cn/
------=_NextPart_000_C4FE_01C85FCE.DC446270-- From bill.welsch@circle42.com Sat Jan 26 07:34:47 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIkFD-00055t-IP; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:34:47 -0500 Received: from [78.164.161.17] (helo=[78.164.161.17]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIkFC-00018M-El; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:34:47 -0500 Received: from [78.164.161.17] by mail1.quadrahosting.com; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:33:19 +0200 Message-ID: <01c86028$65076180$11a1a44e@bill.welsch> From: "Deanna Whitaker" To: Subject: Elephant Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:33:19 +0200 Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:33:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Every Med we stock is onsale today See our special prices at http://batpast.com From garfegnu422@Binghamton.edu Sat Jan 26 09:27:08 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIlzw-0008KI-AG for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:27:08 -0500 Received: from host165-99-dynamic.9-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.9.99.165]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JIlzv-0004MD-Mx for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:27:08 -0500 Received: (qmail 57510 invoked from network); Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:27:13 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO Binghamton.edu) (167.106.140.129) by with SMTP; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:27:12 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain ( [133.159.30.214]) by Binghamton.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id lQeajVgI300569 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:27:11 +0100 Message-Id: <232277931484.lQeajVgI300569@238032.> Received: from phpmailer ([127.0.0.1]) by with HTTP; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:27:11 +0100 Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:27:11 +0100 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "garfegnu" Subject: gallein X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: phpmailer [version 1.54] Reply-To: garfegnu422@Binghamton.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 http://www.mytostrut.com/ Designer Shoes, Boots Heels and More Men Women 65% OFF Versace Chanel D&G Gucci Prada From akstcabodiamnsdgs@abodia.com Sat Jan 26 10:01:42 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JImXO-0001g9-Bl; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:01:42 -0500 Received: from [89.44.125.163] (helo=alexx-7nah5rgh7) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JImXN-00059w-6p; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:01:42 -0500 Received: from [89.44.125.163] by mail-fwd.g14.rapidsite.net; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:11:54 +0200 Message-ID: <01c8603e$8cfa4570$a37d2c59@akstcabodiamnsdgs> From: "Delbert Gagnon" To: Subject: Re: feel why not," Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:11:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Our Med Prices are unbeatable Have a look and start to save now http://thechristianear.com From akstcaltavitamnsdgs@altavita.ch Sun Jan 27 06:07:38 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJ5MP-0001GB-QP; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:07:37 -0500 Received: from 228.net218219044.t-com.ne.jp ([218.219.44.228]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJ5MO-0005Bs-2Z; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:07:36 -0500 Received: from [218.219.44.228] by mail.altavita.ch; , 27 Jan 2008 20:17:56 +0900 From: "Carolina French" To: Subject: Re: and lots of Date: , 27 Jan 2008 20:17:56 +0900 Message-ID: <01c86121$b47c28f0$e42cdbda@akstcaltavitamnsdgs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Our Med Prices are unbeatable Have a look and start to save now http://thehungryear.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 27 22:19:26 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKWa-0002E6-JQ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:19:08 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKWZ-0002E1-PI for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:19:07 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.189]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKWX-0004QG-Bw for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:19:07 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so1231669rvb.49 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:18:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:mime-version:date:x-mailer; bh=b2IjKfS+z7JY/NpJ8S5B5imGAYvib4gY0CiN9B8fThM=; b=XorexAtNOHAAdog1g7p1j9a1UjpGGqlQ/Axn2/16dOvT5G4DnVZH663yePZJjkb1z+coxo0P3QnSLFfGManE627Gb1IyeIFuZy0pbiakRbGpQSGNsk4IWGbiMpNeQgVxLM0TzN4pld/qdakzMw7cdxcUBkuXS7/Ace+buy5SUMc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:mime-version:date:x-mailer; b=vWgf3M0Kh/MU9VpM8NXNwztIiOCEScCoHlCe4aVN7+opW0VKCNa65nG0txWOmB0lvLm+vJ+1rEYSZNCgUoyQyx+8/dvcjqtrFx7p8UxphNElLkeTNP9P/D1Bse3FU6Vu1mY/o+e2RPp1uv8B4Bzm9hOOLhFGE2S7kyiLfxFb+J4= Received: by 10.141.15.19 with SMTP id s19mr3106835rvi.124.1201490328687; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:18:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?203.178.139.168? ( [203.178.139.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k2sm98501rvb.36.2008.01.27.19.18.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:18:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <79D4FE7A-AE01-4C3E-89BF-2AD9515FC7CA@gmail.com> From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:18:43 +0900 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Subject: [MEXT] MCoA Update (-05) X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hello, We submitted -05 draft of MCoA. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-05.txt The modifications are o Binding Unique Identifier is renamed to Bidning Identifier o New Status Code [MCOA NOTCOMPLETE], the home agent uses this status code in the Binding Acknowledgement when not all the bindings are accepted in the bulk registration. o [MCOA FLAG CONFLICTS] are now merged with [MCOA MALFORMED] o Add care-of address verification issue in the Security Consideration, the text is proposed by Benjamin Lim. o Support DSMIPv6 o Support simultaneous foreign and home location. (Section 5.5) o Editorial updates, thanks George Tsirtsis for detailed comments! Your comments are appreciated. thanks ryuji _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 27 22:20:36 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKXy-0002Zs-W6; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:20:34 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKXw-0002ZZ-94; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:20:32 -0500 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKXv-0004RZ-Jo; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:20:32 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9182B32875; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:20:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKXR-0003SA-GL; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:20:01 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:20:01 -0500 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1 Cc: mext@ietf.org Subject: [MEXT] I-D Action:draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-05.txt X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF. Title : Multiple Care-of Addresses Registration Author(s) : R. Wakikawa, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-05.txt Pages : 44 Date : 2008-01-27 According to the current Mobile IPv6 specification, a mobile node may have several care-of addresses, but only one, termed the primary care-of address, can be registered with its home agent and the correspondent nodes. However, for matters of cost, bandwidth, delay, etc, it is useful for the mobile node to get Internet access through multiple access media simultaneously, in which case multiple active IPv6 care-of addresses would be assigned to the mobile node. We thus propose Mobile IPv6 extensions designed to register multiple care-of addresses bound to a single Home Address instead of the sole primary care-of address. For doing so, a new identification number must be carried in each binding for the receiver to distinguish between the bindings corresponding to the same Home Address. Those extensions are targeted to NEMO (Network Mobility) Basic Support as well as to Mobile IPv6. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-01-27221402.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-01-27221402.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --NextPart-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 27 22:27:18 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKeO-0007fj-IU; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:27:12 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKeN-0007dO-CE for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:27:11 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.185]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJKeL-0004cK-CG for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:27:11 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so1233458rvb.49 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:26:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:mime-version:date:x-mailer; bh=pKtx1lpwDBbmyBbALV1I2sAQh3p6XfDJ6fXzpL5bKAY=; b=rP3Ny5vH+dUtdQrFCQ9/+OcTDxeH1nck1Jkd7S3f3vg627OBTWEhEvU97C4rPSz6fTZiebLg/CIEj2XyWycwV/PLdCEAOqjIq2DM5uE5aou9G4moznSFQynWFZAyV7YxPOQSamPrgeqBztklotv8wfb+N/GxkzzqzgAgcIEs+KI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:mime-version:date:x-mailer; b=FqWsN2sZfExFpPtD85KNdv/yKcP12ATra9bnnuIwq3gKxyD+pfu4c66spEALTpmkBhVW3XLX0+8PrgvkIJ3P5rlpT4X5LyeA8heULipBLt2nfkaLs/J1aR/whXLeW9p5eHndKA4p7oqQ7ZuOizlTzRoe4faSwrDvMLzWqHEy7NM= Received: by 10.141.96.21 with SMTP id y21mr3108405rvl.132.1201490815825; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?203.178.139.168? ( [203.178.139.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c19sm933198rvf.30.2008.01.27.19.26.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:26:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:26:47 +0900 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 287c806b254c6353fcb09ee0e53bbc5e Subject: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, At the last IETF meeting, Benjamin presented the security vulnerability of MCoA, re-direction attack. Benjamin's text is merged into the security consideration section. Thanks Benjamin. However, we didn't merge the solution part in the MCoA. The proposed solution is more like an extension and should be written in the separate document. We believe the issue of re-direction attack should not be often happened because a malicious mobile node is always traceable by an operator (i.e. HA). A mobile node must take certain risk to do re-direction attack. For the MCoA document it should be sufficient to just point out this threats. If you have any comments, let us know. I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. thanks ryuji To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach is for the care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) [RFC-3972], thus permitting the home agent to know if the mobile node actually owns that particular care-of address listed in the binding update message. However, introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses might increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve multiple bindings such as how a message can contain multiple CGA signatures for each of the care-of addresses, integration between the CGA module and Mobility Support module in a network stack implementation and further increasing the size of the binding update message. Furthermore, using CGA does not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding attack against a subnet by generating multiple non-existent care-of addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own public keys. Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means at a home agent to limit the amount of information that a home agent can send to a care-of address that has not be tested for its reachability. This reduces the chances of the home agent from flooding packets to a particular untested care-of address. A possible technique to achieve this is to use credit- based authorization (CBA) [RFC-4866]. In this technique, for the home agent to fully use the care-of address for packet routing, the home agent would need to receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested care-of address. However, the packets that the home agent receives from these untested care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile node. Hence, this technique and the following few proposed techniques will henceforth assumes that ingress filtering within the network is done. For example, a mobile node can use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) described in [RFC-792] to send a request message via its home address to a untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where an interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link characteristics (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that particular interface might have resource constraint on its upload path making it costly for a mobile node to send a packet to its home agent using that particular interface. In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting for a packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, it might be possible for the home agent to send a packet to a untested care-of address to trigger a response from the mobile node from that care-of address. One technique described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to prove to the home agent that the mobile node is reachable at a specified care-of address. Another technique could employ the use of the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile node to send a binding update message from that care-of address to the mobile node. However, this technique of testing reduces the optimization benefit of sending bulk registration as it would require the mobile node to respond via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the mobile node might as well send the binding update message individually for each care-of address. To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the benefits of bulk registration, the home agent could test the care-of address by asking a mobile node to reply from a different care-of address as oppose to the care-of address that was used by the home agent to send the trigger message. This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses whereby the mobile node need not respond back using the same path as the reception of the request. Such a concept is particularly useful in the event that the mobile node has several unverified care-of addresses that needs to be tested. By asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of address, in one round trip time, the home agent would be able to verify two care-of addresses. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jan 27 23:18:26 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJLRo-0001TO-6n; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:18:16 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJLRm-0001Sy-U5 for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:18:14 -0500 Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJLRl-0007Ib-P9 for mext@ietf.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:18:14 -0500 Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com ([157.8.1.145]) by smtp.mei.co.jp (8.12.11.20060614/3.7W/kc-maile14) with ESMTP id m0S4IAta027549; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:18:10 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlb1) with ESMTP id m0S4IBw07728; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:18:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/kc-maili03) with ESMTP id m0S4IAY05726; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:18:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from NW-Sephiroth ([10.81.113.117]) by pslexc01.psl.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:17:14 +0800 Received: from NWSephiroth by NW-Sephiroth (PGP Universal service); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:17:11 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by NW-Sephiroth on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:17:11 +0800 From: "Benjamin Lim" To: Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:17:11 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: thread-index: AchhXZPGBlCk5kuIS1Oq+abuCQ1MXwAAeEPg Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2008 04:17:14.0227 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9222430:01C86164] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36b1f8810cb91289d885dc8ab4fc8172 Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Some points inline to start of discussion. > -----Original Message----- > From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:27 AM > To: mext@ietf.org > Subject: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA > > Hi, > > At the last IETF meeting, Benjamin presented the security > vulnerability of MCoA, re-direction attack. > Benjamin's text is merged into the security consideration section. > Thanks Benjamin. > > However, we didn't merge the solution part in the MCoA. > The proposed solution is more like an extension and should be > written in the separate document. > We believe the issue of re-direction attack should not be > often happened because a malicious mobile node is always > traceable by an operator (i.e. HA). > A mobile node must take certain risk to do re-direction attack. [Ben] Such risk taken by the mobile node does factor into the account on wether the attack will occur. However, I find it hard to justify that such risk will prevent such attack from happening often. If more and more attackers are willingly to take such risk (e.g. strong sense of purpose or even 'big ego') or there exisit better mechnisam that helps mask the attacker identity in the future, can we say that such attacks will not happen often? > For the MCoA document it should be sufficient to just point > out this threats. [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard tracks document for a protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop hole) without providing some soultions or guideline to it seems funny. Its like saying "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to slove/prevent it, crack your own brains" Hence, my intention of the below proposed text is to serve as a guide that such exploit can be reduce/prevent with some methods. This I feel helps implementers as we provide some basic steps to help advert such misuse. Would appericate any comments to help in this discussion. Thanks! Regards, Benjamin Lim > > If you have any comments, let us know. > I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. > > thanks > ryuji > > > > To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach is > for the care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) > [RFC-3972], thus permitting the home agent to know if the > mobile node actually owns that particular care-of address > listed in the binding update message. > However, > introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses > might increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve > multiple bindings such as how a message can contain multiple > CGA signatures for each of the care-of addresses, integration > between the CGA module and Mobility Support module in a > network stack implementation and further increasing the size > of the binding update message. Furthermore, using CGA does > not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding > attack against a subnet by generating multiple non-existent > care-of addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own > public keys. > > Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means > at a home agent to limit the amount of information that a > home agent can send to a care-of address that has not be > tested for its reachability. This reduces the chances of the > home agent from flooding packets to a particular untested > care-of address. A possible technique to achieve this is to > use credit- based authorization (CBA) [RFC-4866]. In this > technique, for the home agent to fully use the care-of > address for packet routing, the home agent would need to > receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested > care-of address. > However, the packets that the home agent receives from these > untested care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile > node. Hence, this technique and the following few proposed > techniques will henceforth assumes that ingress filtering > within the network is done. For example, a mobile node can > use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) described in > [RFC-792] to send a request message via its home address to a > untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a > response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where > an interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link > characteristics (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that > particular interface might have resource constraint on its > upload path making it costly for a mobile node to send a > packet to its home agent using that particular interface. > > In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting > for a packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, > it might be possible for the home agent to send a packet to a > untested care-of address to trigger a response from the > mobile node from that care-of address. One technique > described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to prove to the home > agent that the mobile node is reachable at a specified > care-of address. Another technique could employ the use of > the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile > node to send a binding update message from that care-of > address to the mobile node. However, this technique of > testing reduces the optimization benefit of sending bulk > registration as it would require the mobile node to respond > via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the mobile > node might as well send the binding update message > individually for each care-of address. > > To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the > benefits of bulk registration, the home agent could test the > care-of address by asking a mobile node to reply from a > different care-of address as oppose to the care-of address > that was used by the home agent to send the trigger message. > This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses > whereby the mobile node need not respond back using the same > path as the reception of the request. Such a concept is > particularly useful in the event that the mobile node has > several unverified care-of addresses that needs to be tested. > By > asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of > address, in one round trip time, the home agent would be able > to verify two care-of addresses. > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 28 05:30:36 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJRFs-0007g1-MG; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:30:20 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJRFq-0007by-OT for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:30:18 -0500 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.131]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJRFp-0007PB-FT for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:30:18 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.71])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F9534D735;Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:30:16 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <8F6A68FA-B161-427D-B899-3CDDDF2DEF07@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Benjamin Lim In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:30:17 +0100 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-37.6557 TC:02 TRN:93 TV:5.0.1023(15694.003) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 25eb6223a37c19d53ede858176b14339 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org El 28/01/2008, a las 5:17, Benjamin Lim escribi=F3: > Hi, > > Some points inline to start of discussion. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:27 AM >> To: mext@ietf.org >> Subject: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >> >> Hi, >> >> At the last IETF meeting, Benjamin presented the security >> vulnerability of MCoA, re-direction attack. >> Benjamin's text is merged into the security consideration section. >> Thanks Benjamin. >> >> However, we didn't merge the solution part in the MCoA. >> The proposed solution is more like an extension and should be >> written in the separate document. >> We believe the issue of re-direction attack should not be >> often happened because a malicious mobile node is always >> traceable by an operator (i.e. HA). >> A mobile node must take certain risk to do re-direction attack. > [Ben] Such risk taken by the mobile node does factor into the =20 > account on > wether the attack will occur. However, I find it hard to justify =20 > that such > risk will prevent such attack from happening often. If more and more > attackers are willingly to take such risk (e.g. strong sense of =20 > purpose or > even 'big ego') or there exisit better mechnisam that helps mask the > attacker identity in the future, can we say that such attacks will not > happen often? > >> For the MCoA document it should be sufficient to just point >> out this threats. > [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard tracks =20 > document for a > protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop hole) =20 > without > providing some soultions or guideline to it seems funny. Its like =20 > saying > "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to slove/prevent =20 > it, crack > your own brains" not really. imho we should state that the attacker can be traced since a pre =20 existent SA with the HA is needed to launch this attack, so basically =20= we say that if you do your SA lightly, you may have this problem and =20 you would need to take additional security measures. Regards, marcelo > Hence, my intention of the below proposed text is to serve > as a guide that such exploit can be reduce/prevent with some =20 > methods. This I > feel helps implementers as we provide some basic steps to help =20 > advert such > misuse. > > Would appericate any comments to help in this discussion. Thanks! > > Regards, > Benjamin Lim >> >> If you have any comments, let us know. >> I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. >> >> thanks >> ryuji >> >> >> >> To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach is >> for the care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) >> [RFC-3972], thus permitting the home agent to know if the >> mobile node actually owns that particular care-of address >> listed in the binding update message. >> However, >> introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses >> might increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve >> multiple bindings such as how a message can contain multiple >> CGA signatures for each of the care-of addresses, integration >> between the CGA module and Mobility Support module in a >> network stack implementation and further increasing the size >> of the binding update message. Furthermore, using CGA does >> not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding >> attack against a subnet by generating multiple non-existent >> care-of addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own >> public keys. >> >> Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means >> at a home agent to limit the amount of information that a >> home agent can send to a care-of address that has not be >> tested for its reachability. This reduces the chances of the >> home agent from flooding packets to a particular untested >> care-of address. A possible technique to achieve this is to >> use credit- based authorization (CBA) [RFC-4866]. In this >> technique, for the home agent to fully use the care-of >> address for packet routing, the home agent would need to >> receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested >> care-of address. >> However, the packets that the home agent receives from these >> untested care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile >> node. Hence, this technique and the following few proposed >> techniques will henceforth assumes that ingress filtering >> within the network is done. For example, a mobile node can >> use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) described in >> [RFC-792] to send a request message via its home address to a >> untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a >> response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where >> an interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link >> characteristics (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that >> particular interface might have resource constraint on its >> upload path making it costly for a mobile node to send a >> packet to its home agent using that particular interface. >> >> In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting >> for a packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, >> it might be possible for the home agent to send a packet to a >> untested care-of address to trigger a response from the >> mobile node from that care-of address. One technique >> described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to prove to the home >> agent that the mobile node is reachable at a specified >> care-of address. Another technique could employ the use of >> the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile >> node to send a binding update message from that care-of >> address to the mobile node. However, this technique of >> testing reduces the optimization benefit of sending bulk >> registration as it would require the mobile node to respond >> via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the mobile >> node might as well send the binding update message >> individually for each care-of address. >> >> To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the >> benefits of bulk registration, the home agent could test the >> care-of address by asking a mobile node to reply from a >> different care-of address as oppose to the care-of address >> that was used by the home agent to send the trigger message. >> This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses >> whereby the mobile node need not respond back using the same >> path as the reception of the request. Such a concept is >> particularly useful in the event that the mobile node has >> several unverified care-of addresses that needs to be tested. >> By >> asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of >> address, in one round trip time, the home agent would be able >> to verify two care-of addresses. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 28 07:49:58 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJTQr-0007gL-46; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:49:49 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJTQp-0007gE-CQ for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:49:47 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.191]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJTQo-0002qp-0H for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:49:47 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so1362646rvb.49 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:49:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:in-reply-to:subject:references:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc:x-mailer; bh=dQ+C8jdu0+PHCDGYk7uJMC4ibmlXTXPFGZKa+pLP4jE=; b=NuvEeO4V0m4oOLZH8zykCp4hZn/oTtI5Mz5vdJYK6GrQ40ahpBMt45GaAaK22PKKtv75JinRTnW5CYDiVdmo7JsYHGM1SOwUfZpANbGfWJv5dj98XdmHHY34MF7Y5WbXCsj1T5Zhv8jIpu9Zx1Gp2Q06uH+0UPBiktrwqwu6R4g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:in-reply-to:subject:references:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:date:cc:x-mailer; b=rMAbSu4u/txGSeXMQyFrA+SV0fJhn8umGOyNSWOvcmePWgga+Dmn0cZkG/qIFs8u323bGeavSrZw4aMxzdpHDwNncwbkwYMV8GMJJ8zxKIt+p0yEUIXhGFhGtDdVGBQrTE5NDm4RpAGUQhg53dgPqVchUQ4Usg/4PJ48KvLSrkY= Received: by 10.140.208.14 with SMTP id f14mr3379805rvg.283.1201524585121; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?203.178.139.168? ( [203.178.139.168]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l32sm662777rvb.2.2008.01.28.04.49.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:49:44 -0800 (PST) From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA To: marcelo bagnulo braun In-Reply-To: <8F6A68FA-B161-427D-B899-3CDDDF2DEF07@it.uc3m.es> Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA References: <8F6A68FA-B161-427D-B899-3CDDDF2DEF07@it.uc3m.es> Message-Id: <631B08BD-23BE-421F-899B-E1D5B950A134@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:49:41 +0900 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93df555cbdbcdae9621e5b95d44b301e Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org On 2008/01/28, at 19:30, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > > El 28/01/2008, a las 5:17, Benjamin Lim escribi=F3: > >> Hi, >> >> Some points inline to start of discussion. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:27 AM >>> To: mext@ietf.org >>> Subject: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> At the last IETF meeting, Benjamin presented the security >>> vulnerability of MCoA, re-direction attack. >>> Benjamin's text is merged into the security consideration section. >>> Thanks Benjamin. >>> >>> However, we didn't merge the solution part in the MCoA. >>> The proposed solution is more like an extension and should be >>> written in the separate document. >>> We believe the issue of re-direction attack should not be >>> often happened because a malicious mobile node is always >>> traceable by an operator (i.e. HA). >>> A mobile node must take certain risk to do re-direction attack. >> [Ben] Such risk taken by the mobile node does factor into the =20 >> account on >> wether the attack will occur. However, I find it hard to justify =20 >> that such >> risk will prevent such attack from happening often. If more and more >> attackers are willingly to take such risk (e.g. strong sense of =20 >> purpose or >> even 'big ego') or there exisit better mechnisam that helps mask the >> attacker identity in the future, can we say that such attacks will =20= >> not >> happen often? That future is nobody knows:-) My question is whether we really need this solution in this base MCoA =20= document. You can always propose this solution in the separate document. >>> For the MCoA document it should be sufficient to just point >>> out this threats. >> [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard tracks =20 >> document for a >> protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop hole) =20= >> without >> providing some soultions or guideline to it seems funny. Its like =20 >> saying >> "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to slove/prevent =20 >> it, crack >> your own brains" > > not really. > imho we should state that the attacker can be traced since a pre =20 > existent SA with the HA is needed to launch this attack, so =20 > basically we say that if you do your SA lightly, you may have this =20 > problem and you would need to take additional security measures. agree, this is what we (authors) think. regards, ryuji > Regards, marcelo > > >> Hence, my intention of the below proposed text is to serve >> as a guide that such exploit can be reduce/prevent with some =20 >> methods. This I >> feel helps implementers as we provide some basic steps to help =20 >> advert such >> misuse. >> >> Would appericate any comments to help in this discussion. Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> Benjamin Lim >>> >>> If you have any comments, let us know. >>> I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. >>> >>> thanks >>> ryuji >>> >>> >>> >>> To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach is >>> for the care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) >>> [RFC-3972], thus permitting the home agent to know if the >>> mobile node actually owns that particular care-of address >>> listed in the binding update message. >>> However, >>> introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses >>> might increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve >>> multiple bindings such as how a message can contain multiple >>> CGA signatures for each of the care-of addresses, integration >>> between the CGA module and Mobility Support module in a >>> network stack implementation and further increasing the size >>> of the binding update message. Furthermore, using CGA does >>> not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding >>> attack against a subnet by generating multiple non-existent >>> care-of addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own >>> public keys. >>> >>> Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means >>> at a home agent to limit the amount of information that a >>> home agent can send to a care-of address that has not be >>> tested for its reachability. This reduces the chances of the >>> home agent from flooding packets to a particular untested >>> care-of address. A possible technique to achieve this is to >>> use credit- based authorization (CBA) [RFC-4866]. In this >>> technique, for the home agent to fully use the care-of >>> address for packet routing, the home agent would need to >>> receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested >>> care-of address. >>> However, the packets that the home agent receives from these >>> untested care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile >>> node. Hence, this technique and the following few proposed >>> techniques will henceforth assumes that ingress filtering >>> within the network is done. For example, a mobile node can >>> use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) described in >>> [RFC-792] to send a request message via its home address to a >>> untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a >>> response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where >>> an interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link >>> characteristics (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that >>> particular interface might have resource constraint on its >>> upload path making it costly for a mobile node to send a >>> packet to its home agent using that particular interface. >>> >>> In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting >>> for a packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, >>> it might be possible for the home agent to send a packet to a >>> untested care-of address to trigger a response from the >>> mobile node from that care-of address. One technique >>> described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to prove to the home >>> agent that the mobile node is reachable at a specified >>> care-of address. Another technique could employ the use of >>> the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile >>> node to send a binding update message from that care-of >>> address to the mobile node. However, this technique of >>> testing reduces the optimization benefit of sending bulk >>> registration as it would require the mobile node to respond >>> via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the mobile >>> node might as well send the binding update message >>> individually for each care-of address. >>> >>> To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the >>> benefits of bulk registration, the home agent could test the >>> care-of address by asking a mobile node to reply from a >>> different care-of address as oppose to the care-of address >>> that was used by the home agent to send the trigger message. >>> This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses >>> whereby the mobile node need not respond back using the same >>> path as the reception of the request. Such a concept is >>> particularly useful in the event that the mobile node has >>> several unverified care-of addresses that needs to be tested. >>> By >>> asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of >>> address, in one round trip time, the home agent would be able >>> to verify two care-of addresses. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From central@chrisdowns.net Mon Jan 28 10:21:59 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJVo7-0004OG-Dp; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:21:59 -0500 Received: from bzq-84-108-242-106.cablep.bezeqint.net ([84.108.242.106] helo=a-5f64944c7d7c4) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJVo5-0006bo-VL; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:21:59 -0500 Received: from [84.108.242.106] by mail24.opentransfer.com; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:20:27 +0200 Message-ID: <01c861d2$13023f80$6af26c54@central> From: "Britney Vickers" To: Subject: Jet fighter Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:20:27 +0200 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:20:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3338.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3338.1 X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Every Med we stock is onsale today See our special prices at http://gauserrimer.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 28 16:05:11 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJbA8-0003tH-9a; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:05:04 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJbA6-0003t0-US for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:05:03 -0500 Received: from neon.tcs.hut.fi ([130.233.215.20] helo=mail.tcs.hut.fi) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJbA5-0003Fo-JH for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:05:02 -0500 Received: from rhea.tcs.hut.fi (rhea.tcs.hut.fi [130.233.215.147]) by mail.tcs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32EB82C020DB2; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:04:57 +0200 (EET) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:04:57 +0200 (EET) From: Wassim Haddad To: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA In-Reply-To: <8F6A68FA-B161-427D-B899-3CDDDF2DEF07@it.uc3m.es> Message-ID: References: <8F6A68FA-B161-427D-B899-3CDDDF2DEF07@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-377318441-1276194880-1201554297=:17801" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b8f3559805f7873076212d6f63ee803e Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---377318441-1276194880-1201554297=:17801 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hi, On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > El 28/01/2008, a las 5:17, Benjamin Lim escribi=F3: > >> Hi, >>=20 >> Some points inline to start of discussion. >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:27 AM >>> To: mext@ietf.org >>> Subject: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >>>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> At the last IETF meeting, Benjamin presented the security >>> vulnerability of MCoA, re-direction attack. >>> Benjamin's text is merged into the security consideration section. >>> Thanks Benjamin. >>>=20 >>> However, we didn't merge the solution part in the MCoA. >>> The proposed solution is more like an extension and should be >>> written in the separate document. >>> We believe the issue of re-direction attack should not be >>> often happened because a malicious mobile node is always >>> traceable by an operator (i.e. HA). >>> A mobile node must take certain risk to do re-direction attack. >> [Ben] Such risk taken by the mobile node does factor into the account on >> wether the attack will occur. However, I find it hard to justify that su= ch >> risk will prevent such attack from happening often. If more and more >> attackers are willingly to take such risk (e.g. strong sense of purpose = or >> even 'big ego') or there exisit better mechnisam that helps mask the >> attacker identity in the future, can we say that such attacks will not >> happen often? >>=20 >>> For the MCoA document it should be sufficient to just point >>> out this threats. >> [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard tracks document fo= r a >> protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop hole) witho= ut >> providing some soultions or guideline to it seems funny. Its like saying >> "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to slove/prevent it, cr= ack >> your own brains" > > not really. > imho we should state that the attacker can be traced since a pre existent= SA=20 > with the HA is needed to launch this attack, so basically we say that if = you=20 > do your SA lightly, you may have this problem and you would need to take= =20 > additional security measures. =3D> IMHO, this type of defense is a "second line of defense" and not a fir= st one=20 which should allow to stop the attack immediately when it occurs. So I also= believe that we do need a real mechanism which would be complemented by the existin= g one. Regards, Wassim H. >> Hence, my intention of the below proposed text is to serve >> as a guide that such exploit can be reduce/prevent with some methods. Th= is=20 >> I >> feel helps implementers as we provide some basic steps to help advert su= ch >> misuse. >>=20 >> Would appericate any comments to help in this discussion. Thanks! >>=20 >> Regards, >> Benjamin Lim >>>=20 >>> If you have any comments, let us know. >>> I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. >>>=20 >>> thanks >>> ryuji >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach is >>> for the care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) >>> [RFC-3972], thus permitting the home agent to know if the >>> mobile node actually owns that particular care-of address >>> listed in the binding update message. >>> However, >>> introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses >>> might increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve >>> multiple bindings such as how a message can contain multiple >>> CGA signatures for each of the care-of addresses, integration >>> between the CGA module and Mobility Support module in a >>> network stack implementation and further increasing the size >>> of the binding update message. Furthermore, using CGA does >>> not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding >>> attack against a subnet by generating multiple non-existent >>> care-of addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own >>> public keys. >>>=20 >>> Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means >>> at a home agent to limit the amount of information that a >>> home agent can send to a care-of address that has not be >>> tested for its reachability. This reduces the chances of the >>> home agent from flooding packets to a particular untested >>> care-of address. A possible technique to achieve this is to >>> use credit- based authorization (CBA) [RFC-4866]. In this >>> technique, for the home agent to fully use the care-of >>> address for packet routing, the home agent would need to >>> receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested >>> care-of address. >>> However, the packets that the home agent receives from these >>> untested care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile >>> node. Hence, this technique and the following few proposed >>> techniques will henceforth assumes that ingress filtering >>> within the network is done. For example, a mobile node can >>> use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) described in >>> [RFC-792] to send a request message via its home address to a >>> untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a >>> response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where >>> an interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link >>> characteristics (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that >>> particular interface might have resource constraint on its >>> upload path making it costly for a mobile node to send a >>> packet to its home agent using that particular interface. >>>=20 >>> In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting >>> for a packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, >>> it might be possible for the home agent to send a packet to a >>> untested care-of address to trigger a response from the >>> mobile node from that care-of address. One technique >>> described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to prove to the home >>> agent that the mobile node is reachable at a specified >>> care-of address. Another technique could employ the use of >>> the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile >>> node to send a binding update message from that care-of >>> address to the mobile node. However, this technique of >>> testing reduces the optimization benefit of sending bulk >>> registration as it would require the mobile node to respond >>> via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the mobile >>> node might as well send the binding update message >>> individually for each care-of address. >>>=20 >>> To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the >>> benefits of bulk registration, the home agent could test the >>> care-of address by asking a mobile node to reply from a >>> different care-of address as oppose to the care-of address >>> that was used by the home agent to send the trigger message. >>> This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses >>> whereby the mobile node need not respond back using the same >>> path as the reception of the request. Such a concept is >>> particularly useful in the event that the mobile node has >>> several unverified care-of addresses that needs to be tested. >>> By >>> asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of >>> address, in one round trip time, the home agent would be able >>> to verify two care-of addresses. >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > ---377318441-1276194880-1201554297=:17801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext ---377318441-1276194880-1201554297=:17801-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 28 17:28:19 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJcSV-0003Vw-9o; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:28:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJcST-0003Vd-0Z for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:28:05 -0500 Received: from mail2.azairenet.com ([207.47.15.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJcSQ-0007h0-Sq for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:28:04 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([207.47.15.6]) by mail2.azairenet.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:28:01 -0800 Message-ID: <479E56F1.5080906@azairenet.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:28:01 -0800 From: Vijay Devarapalli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Lim Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2008 22:28:01.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B0423E0:01C861FD] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3fbd9b434023f8abfcb1532abaec7a21 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Benjamin, FWIW, for the current draft, I think it is sufficient to point out the threats in the security considerations section. The home agent knows which mobile node launched the attch, so that should be a deterrent. We should not require the CoA to be a CGA, require CBA or mandate a return routability test for the CoA for the multiple CoA extension. I also think we should add an informative reference pointing to draft-lim-mext-multiple-coa-verify-00 for preventing the attack. Vijay Benjamin Lim wrote: > Hi, > > Some points inline to start of discussion. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:27 AM >> To: mext@ietf.org >> Subject: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >> >> Hi, >> >> At the last IETF meeting, Benjamin presented the security >> vulnerability of MCoA, re-direction attack. >> Benjamin's text is merged into the security consideration section. >> Thanks Benjamin. >> >> However, we didn't merge the solution part in the MCoA. >> The proposed solution is more like an extension and should be >> written in the separate document. >> We believe the issue of re-direction attack should not be >> often happened because a malicious mobile node is always >> traceable by an operator (i.e. HA). >> A mobile node must take certain risk to do re-direction attack. > [Ben] Such risk taken by the mobile node does factor into the account on > wether the attack will occur. However, I find it hard to justify that such > risk will prevent such attack from happening often. If more and more > attackers are willingly to take such risk (e.g. strong sense of purpose or > even 'big ego') or there exisit better mechnisam that helps mask the > attacker identity in the future, can we say that such attacks will not > happen often? > >> For the MCoA document it should be sufficient to just point >> out this threats. > [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard tracks document for a > protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop hole) without > providing some soultions or guideline to it seems funny. Its like saying > "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to slove/prevent it, crack > your own brains" Hence, my intention of the below proposed text is to serve > as a guide that such exploit can be reduce/prevent with some methods. This I > feel helps implementers as we provide some basic steps to help advert such > misuse. > > Would appericate any comments to help in this discussion. Thanks! > > Regards, > Benjamin Lim >> If you have any comments, let us know. >> I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. >> >> thanks >> ryuji >> >> >> >> To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach is >> for the care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) >> [RFC-3972], thus permitting the home agent to know if the >> mobile node actually owns that particular care-of address >> listed in the binding update message. >> However, >> introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses >> might increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve >> multiple bindings such as how a message can contain multiple >> CGA signatures for each of the care-of addresses, integration >> between the CGA module and Mobility Support module in a >> network stack implementation and further increasing the size >> of the binding update message. Furthermore, using CGA does >> not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding >> attack against a subnet by generating multiple non-existent >> care-of addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own >> public keys. >> >> Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means >> at a home agent to limit the amount of information that a >> home agent can send to a care-of address that has not be >> tested for its reachability. This reduces the chances of the >> home agent from flooding packets to a particular untested >> care-of address. A possible technique to achieve this is to >> use credit- based authorization (CBA) [RFC-4866]. In this >> technique, for the home agent to fully use the care-of >> address for packet routing, the home agent would need to >> receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested >> care-of address. >> However, the packets that the home agent receives from these >> untested care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile >> node. Hence, this technique and the following few proposed >> techniques will henceforth assumes that ingress filtering >> within the network is done. For example, a mobile node can >> use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) described in >> [RFC-792] to send a request message via its home address to a >> untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a >> response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where >> an interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link >> characteristics (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that >> particular interface might have resource constraint on its >> upload path making it costly for a mobile node to send a >> packet to its home agent using that particular interface. >> >> In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting >> for a packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, >> it might be possible for the home agent to send a packet to a >> untested care-of address to trigger a response from the >> mobile node from that care-of address. One technique >> described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to prove to the home >> agent that the mobile node is reachable at a specified >> care-of address. Another technique could employ the use of >> the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile >> node to send a binding update message from that care-of >> address to the mobile node. However, this technique of >> testing reduces the optimization benefit of sending bulk >> registration as it would require the mobile node to respond >> via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the mobile >> node might as well send the binding update message >> individually for each care-of address. >> >> To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the >> benefits of bulk registration, the home agent could test the >> care-of address by asking a mobile node to reply from a >> different care-of address as oppose to the care-of address >> that was used by the home agent to send the trigger message. >> This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses >> whereby the mobile node need not respond back using the same >> path as the reception of the request. Such a concept is >> particularly useful in the event that the mobile node has >> several unverified care-of addresses that needs to be tested. >> By >> asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of >> address, in one round trip time, the home agent would be able >> to verify two care-of addresses. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From BrandieestimableBourgeois@lastplanetojakarta.com Mon Jan 28 17:36:14 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJcaM-0008Sx-0Q; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:36:14 -0500 Received: from node-be0b98d8.scarlet.an ([190.185.8.216] helo=lastxp.scarlet.an) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJcaL-0006NE-0E; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:36:13 -0500 Message-ID: <09de01c86262$7bfaa500$d808b9be@LASTXP> From: "Leta Pool" To: Subject: Re: Simple Application Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:33:33 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_09DA_01C86262.7BFAA500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_09DA_01C86262.7BFAA500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your credit doesn't matter to us! If you have your own business and wish IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way = you like or require Extra money to give the company a boost or need A = low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, here is best deal we can offer = you NOW (hurry, this tender will expire TODAY): $54,000+ loan Hurry, when our deal is gone, it is gone. Simply fill out this short = form... Don't worry about approval, your credit score will not disqualify you! http://hitcthis.com.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_09DA_01C86262.7BFAA500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
Your credit history = doesn't=20 matter to us!
=20
 
If you have your own = business and=20 want IMMEDIATE money to spend ANY way you like or wish Extra money to = give your=20 business a boost or wish A low interest loan - NO STRINGS ATTACHED, = here is=20 best deal we can offer you TONIGHT (hurry, this deal will expire=20 NOW):
=20
 
$62,000+ = loan
 
Hurry, when the deal = is gone, it=20 is gone. Simply finish this plain form...
=20
 
Don't worry about = approval, your=20 credit score will not disqualify you!
=20
 
http://hitcthis.com.cn/ ------=_NextPart_000_09DA_01C86262.7BFAA500-- From ritehtviybgdb@374designs.com Mon Jan 28 20:48:35 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJfaV-0002qV-8l for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:48:35 -0500 Received: from n22z159l42.broadband.ctm.net ([202.86.159.42]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJfaT-0002hl-Ov for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:48:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 69686 invoked from network); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:48:33 +0800 Received: from unknown (HELO 374designs.com) (222.190.45.80) by with SMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:48:32 +0800 Received: from localhost.localdomain ( [165.90.104.57]) by 374designs.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id OdczBbVe934221 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:48:31 +0800 Message-Id: <002810203785.OdczBbVe934221@433665.> Received: from phpmailer ([127.0.0.1]) by with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:48:31 +0800 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:48:31 +0800 To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org From: "ritehtvi" Subject: |rmikule X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: phpmailer [version 1.54] Reply-To: ritehtviybgdb@374designs.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset = "iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 http://www.bvrhiesge.com/ I didn't believe it was true, but I had nothing to lose - incredibly, I gained 1 inch in just 1 month. From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 28 21:00:07 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJfla-00019k-0U; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:00:02 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJflZ-00017d-3P for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:00:01 -0500 Received: from mail2.azairenet.com ([207.47.15.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJflX-0003jg-19 for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:00:01 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([207.47.15.6]) by mail2.azairenet.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:59:58 -0800 Message-ID: <479E889E.5090301@azairenet.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:59:58 -0800 From: Vijay Devarapalli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mext@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020409090508020205000305" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2008 01:59:58.0358 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6960360:01C8621A] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e178fd6cb61ffb6940cd878e7fea8606 Subject: [MEXT] [Fwd: [Mip6] RFC 5142 on Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message] X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020409090508020205000305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI --------------020409090508020205000305 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[Mip6] RFC 5142 on Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename*0="[Mip6] RFC 5142 on Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message"; filename*1=".eml" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([156.154.16.145]) by mail2.azairenet.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:28:35 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C86216.44046380" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJfGj-0006Kf-3u; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:28:09 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJfGf-0006FB-CD; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:28:05 -0500 Received: from bosco.isi.edu ([128.9.168.207]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJfGe-0002D9-Us; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:28:05 -0500 Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 5554110B6DA; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:28:04 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2008 01:28:36.0011 (UTC) FILETIME=[449EA7B0:01C86216] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 List-Id: mip6.ietf.org X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org List-Post: Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: 4b800b1eab964a31702fa68f1ff0e955 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: [Mip6] RFC 5142 on Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:28:04 -0800 Message-ID: <20080129012804.5554110B6DA@bosco.isi.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Mip6] RFC 5142 on Mobility Header Home Agent Switch Message Thread-Index: AchiFkT0eE5nTMvMRL+pg+BJd7+xBw== List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , From: To: , Cc: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C86216.44046380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. =20 RFC 5142 Title: Mobility Header Home Agent Switch=20 Message=20 Author: B. Haley, V. Devarapalli, H. Deng, J. Kempf Status: Standards Track Date: January 2008 Mailbox: brian.haley@hp.com,=20 vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com,=20 kempf@docomolabs-usa.com, denghui@chinamobile.com Pages: 13 Characters: 27460 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-mip6-ha-switch-06.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5142.txt This document specifies a new Mobility Header message type that can be used between a home agent and mobile node to signal to a mobile node that it should acquire a new home agent. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Mobility for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and = suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body=20 help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list Mip6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C86216.44046380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Mip6] RFC 5142 on Mobility Header Home Agent Switch = Message

A new Request for Comments is now available in online = RFC libraries.

       
        RFC 5142

        = Title:      Mobility Header Home Agent = Switch
            &= nbsp;       Message
        = Author:     B. Haley, V. Devarapalli,
            &= nbsp;       H. Deng, J. Kempf
        = Status:     Standards Track
        = Date:       January 2008
        Mailbox:    = brian.haley@hp.com,
            &= nbsp;       = vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com,
            &= nbsp;       = kempf@docomolabs-usa.com,  denghui@chinamobile.com
        = Pages:      13
        Characters: 27460
        = Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    = draft-ietf-mip6-ha-switch-06.txt

        = URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.= org/rfc/rfc5142.txt

This document specifies a new Mobility Header message type that can
be used between a home agent and mobile node to signal to a mobile = node
that it should acquire a new home agent.  [STANDARDS TRACK]

This document is a product of the Mobility for IPv6
Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track
protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and = suggestions
for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet
 Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state = and
 status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is = unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG.  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by = sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body

help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:

        To: = rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  = Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions = to RFC
Authors, for further information.


The RFC Editor Team
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...



_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/mip6

------_=_NextPart_001_01C86216.44046380-- --------------020409090508020205000305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext --------------020409090508020205000305-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 28 21:51:30 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJgZH-0006lN-Jk; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:51:23 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJgZF-0006lG-RD for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:51:21 -0500 Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJgZD-0004Ux-7d for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:51:21 -0500 Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com ([157.8.1.145]) by smtp.mei.co.jp (8.12.11.20060614/3.7W/kc-maile11) with ESMTP id m0T2pHuU026295; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:51:17 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlb2) with ESMTP id m0T2pH806271; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:51:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/kc-maili07) with ESMTP id m0T2pHp01305; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:51:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from NW-Sephiroth ([10.81.113.117]) by pslexc01.psl.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:50:21 +0800 Received: from NWSephiroth by NW-Sephiroth (PGP Universal service); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:50:17 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by NW-Sephiroth on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:50:17 +0800 From: "Benjamin Lim" To: "'marcelo bagnulo braun'" Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:50:17 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <8F6A68FA-B161-427D-B899-3CDDDF2DEF07@it.uc3m.es> thread-index: AchhmKt7JpWvfcP8Q96XuHSi+FAq/gAhDNDA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2008 02:50:21.0330 (UTC) FILETIME=[B06AEF20:01C86221] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21be852dc93f0971708678c18d38c096 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi,=20 Reply inline. =3D8=3D=3D8<=3D8=3D=3D > > [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard=20 > tracks document=20 > > for a protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop=20 > > hole) without providing some soultions or guideline to it=20 > seems funny.=20 > > Its like saying "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to=20 > > slove/prevent it, crack your own brains" >=20 > not really. > imho we should state that the attacker can be traced since a pre =20 > existent SA with the HA is needed to launch this attack, so=20 > basically =20 > we say that if you do your SA lightly, you may have this problem and =20 > you would need to take additional security measures. [Ben] I do not think that the SA between MN and HA would stop such = problem. What you propose only limits the effect of the problem and not prevent = it. Even if the malicious MN and HA has a pre-establish SA, how is the HA = going to know to start tracing to find the root of the problem? Only when = victims complain to the HA, then the HA would begin finding the cause to such problem correct? So the problem has occurred and now the home agent will = try to limit the effect of the problem from spreading even further.=20 Also, the attacker need not be the user of the mobile node. One example = is the bot-net scenario where the attacker controls unwilling legit mobile nodes to perform such attack. The HA can trace back to these unwilling mobile nodes and take action (e.g. deny these unwilling mobile nodes service). Yes, by denying the attacker of its tools, you can prevent the attack from escalating further. However, shutting down your own network = to prevent such action is tad bit costly to the operator no? Maybe this was = the intention of the attacker in the first place. Hence, base on the above points, wouldn=92t it be better if the home = agent can prevent such problem from happening in the first place? Regards, Benjamin Lim >=20 > Regards, marcelo >=20 >=20 > > Hence, my intention of the below proposed text is to serve > > as a guide that such exploit can be reduce/prevent with some =20 > > methods. This I > > feel helps implementers as we provide some basic steps to help =20 > > advert such > > misuse. > > > > Would appericate any comments to help in this discussion. Thanks! > > > > Regards, > > Benjamin Lim > >> > >> If you have any comments, let us know. > >> I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. > >> > >> thanks > >> ryuji > >> > >> > >> > >> To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach is > >> for the care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) > >> [RFC-3972], thus permitting the home agent to know if the > >> mobile node actually owns that particular care-of address > >> listed in the binding update message. > >> However, > >> introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses > >> might increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve > >> multiple bindings such as how a message can contain multiple > >> CGA signatures for each of the care-of addresses, integration > >> between the CGA module and Mobility Support module in a > >> network stack implementation and further increasing the size > >> of the binding update message. Furthermore, using CGA does > >> not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding > >> attack against a subnet by generating multiple non-existent > >> care-of addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own > >> public keys. > >> > >> Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means > >> at a home agent to limit the amount of information that a > >> home agent can send to a care-of address that has not be > >> tested for its reachability. This reduces the chances of the > >> home agent from flooding packets to a particular untested > >> care-of address. A possible technique to achieve this is to > >> use credit- based authorization (CBA) [RFC-4866]. In this > >> technique, for the home agent to fully use the care-of > >> address for packet routing, the home agent would need to > >> receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested > >> care-of address. > >> However, the packets that the home agent receives from these > >> untested care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile > >> node. Hence, this technique and the following few proposed > >> techniques will henceforth assumes that ingress filtering > >> within the network is done. For example, a mobile node can > >> use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) described in > >> [RFC-792] to send a request message via its home address to a > >> untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a > >> response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where > >> an interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link > >> characteristics (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that > >> particular interface might have resource constraint on its > >> upload path making it costly for a mobile node to send a > >> packet to its home agent using that particular interface. > >> > >> In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting > >> for a packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, > >> it might be possible for the home agent to send a packet to a > >> untested care-of address to trigger a response from the > >> mobile node from that care-of address. One technique > >> described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to prove to the home > >> agent that the mobile node is reachable at a specified > >> care-of address. Another technique could employ the use of > >> the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile > >> node to send a binding update message from that care-of > >> address to the mobile node. However, this technique of > >> testing reduces the optimization benefit of sending bulk > >> registration as it would require the mobile node to respond > >> via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the mobile > >> node might as well send the binding update message > >> individually for each care-of address. > >> > >> To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the > >> benefits of bulk registration, the home agent could test the > >> care-of address by asking a mobile node to reply from a > >> different care-of address as oppose to the care-of address > >> that was used by the home agent to send the trigger message. > >> This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses > >> whereby the mobile node need not respond back using the same > >> path as the reception of the request. Such a concept is > >> particularly useful in the event that the mobile node has > >> several unverified care-of addresses that needs to be tested. > >> By > >> asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of > >> address, in one round trip time, the home agent would be able > >> to verify two care-of addresses. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> MEXT mailing list > >> MEXT@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jan 28 22:04:11 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJglb-0006dR-RM; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:04:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJgla-0006dC-Ct for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:04:06 -0500 Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJglZ-0004fq-5B for mext@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:04:06 -0500 Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com ([157.8.1.145]) by smtp.mei.co.jp (8.12.11.20060614/3.7W/kc-maile12) with ESMTP id m0T34188018410; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:04:01 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlb1) with ESMTP id m0T341W18810; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:04:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/kc-maili04) with ESMTP id m0T33xw07113; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:03:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from NW-Sephiroth ([10.81.113.117]) by pslexc01.psl.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:03:04 +0800 Received: from NWSephiroth by NW-Sephiroth (PGP Universal service); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:03:01 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by NW-Sephiroth on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:03:01 +0800 From: "Benjamin Lim" To: "'Vijay Devarapalli'" Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:03:01 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <479E56F1.5080906@azairenet.com> thread-index: Achh/O3WYr4f7r39QJ+JnJEC4n+0QAAJMnBA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2008 03:03:04.0892 (UTC) FILETIME=[77893FC0:01C86223] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 16c9da4896bf5539ae3547c6c25f06a0 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Vijay, =8==8<=8== > FWIW, for the current draft, I think it is sufficient to > point out the threats in the security considerations section. > The home agent knows which mobile node launched the attch, so > that should be a deterrent. We should not require the CoA to > be a CGA, require CBA or mandate a return routability test > for the CoA for the multiple CoA extension. [Ben] I am not mandating a solution for CoA testing yet. My intention in my draft was to analyze and discuss the best way to solve the problem. Till then, I feel it might be better to list the current possible approaches to the problem in the MCoA draft. These approaches serves as some options that implementers can take to help advert such problem. > > I also think we should add an informative reference pointing > to draft-lim-mext-multiple-coa-verify-00 for preventing the attack. [Ben] A standard track document pointing to a draft that may expire for solutions. I am not sure if this is the correct way to go. Regards, Benjamin Lim > > Vijay > > Benjamin Lim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Some points inline to start of discussion. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:27 AM > >> To: mext@ietf.org > >> Subject: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> At the last IETF meeting, Benjamin presented the security > >> vulnerability of MCoA, re-direction attack. > >> Benjamin's text is merged into the security consideration > section. > >> Thanks Benjamin. > >> > >> However, we didn't merge the solution part in the MCoA. > >> The proposed solution is more like an extension and should > be written > >> in the separate document. > >> We believe the issue of re-direction attack should not be often > >> happened because a malicious mobile node is always traceable by an > >> operator (i.e. HA). > >> A mobile node must take certain risk to do re-direction attack. > > [Ben] Such risk taken by the mobile node does factor into > the account > > on wether the attack will occur. However, I find it hard to justify > > that such risk will prevent such attack from happening > often. If more > > and more attackers are willingly to take such risk (e.g. > strong sense > > of purpose or even 'big ego') or there exisit better mechnisam that > > helps mask the attacker identity in the future, can we say > that such > > attacks will not happen often? > > > >> For the MCoA document it should be sufficient to just > point out this > >> threats. > > [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard > tracks document > > for a protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop > > hole) without providing some soultions or guideline to it > seems funny. > > Its like saying "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to > > slove/prevent it, crack your own brains" Hence, my intention of the > > below proposed text is to serve as a guide that such exploit can be > > reduce/prevent with some methods. This I feel helps > implementers as we > > provide some basic steps to help advert such misuse. > > > > Would appericate any comments to help in this discussion. Thanks! > > > > Regards, > > Benjamin Lim > >> If you have any comments, let us know. > >> I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. > >> > >> thanks > >> ryuji > >> > >> > >> > >> To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach > is for the > >> care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) [RFC-3972], > >> thus permitting the home agent to know if the mobile node actually > >> owns that particular care-of address listed in the binding update > >> message. > >> However, > >> introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses might > >> increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve > multiple bindings > >> such as how a message can contain multiple CGA signatures > for each of > >> the care-of addresses, integration between the CGA module and > >> Mobility Support module in a network stack implementation > and further > >> increasing the size of the binding update message. > Furthermore, using > >> CGA does not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding > >> attack against a subnet by generating multiple > non-existent care-of > >> addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own public keys. > >> > >> Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means at a > >> home agent to limit the amount of information that a home > agent can > >> send to a care-of address that has not be tested for its > >> reachability. This reduces the chances of the home agent from > >> flooding packets to a particular untested care-of address. > A possible > >> technique to achieve this is to use credit- based > authorization (CBA) > >> [RFC-4866]. In this technique, for the home agent to fully use the > >> care-of address for packet routing, the home agent would need to > >> receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested care-of > >> address. > >> However, the packets that the home agent receives from > these untested > >> care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile node. > Hence, this > >> technique and the following few proposed techniques will > henceforth > >> assumes that ingress filtering within the network is done. For > >> example, a mobile node can use the Internet Control > Message Protocol > >> (ICMP) described in [RFC-792] to send a request message > via its home > >> address to a untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a > >> response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where an > >> interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link characteristics > >> (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that particular > interface might > >> have resource constraint on its upload path making it costly for a > >> mobile node to send a packet to its home agent using that > particular > >> interface. > >> > >> In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting for a > >> packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, it might be > >> possible for the home agent to send a packet to a untested care-of > >> address to trigger a response from the mobile node from > that care-of > >> address. One technique described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to > >> prove to the home agent that the mobile node is reachable at a > >> specified care-of address. Another technique could employ > the use of > >> the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile node to > >> send a binding update message from that care-of address to > the mobile > >> node. However, this technique of testing reduces the optimization > >> benefit of sending bulk registration as it would require > the mobile > >> node to respond via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the > >> mobile node might as well send the binding update message > >> individually for each care-of address. > >> > >> To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the benefits of > >> bulk registration, the home agent could test the care-of > address by > >> asking a mobile node to reply from a different care-of address as > >> oppose to the care-of address that was used by the home > agent to send > >> the trigger message. > >> This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses > whereby the > >> mobile node need not respond back using the same path as the > >> reception of the request. Such a concept is particularly useful in > >> the event that the mobile node has several unverified care-of > >> addresses that needs to be tested. > >> By > >> asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of > address, in one > >> round trip time, the home agent would be able to verify > two care-of > >> addresses. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> MEXT mailing list > >> MEXT@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From tball9971@delta.org Tue Jan 29 02:54:45 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJlIr-0008IT-5y for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:54:45 -0500 Received: from bsk47.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.29.130.47]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJlIo-0002KL-OH for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:54:45 -0500 Received: from [51.49.140.233] (helo=pdu) by bsk47.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl with smtp (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) id 1JK+07-0001OP-2r; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:55:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c8624c$30d87db0$e98c3133@pdu> From: To: Subject: I Dream of you Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:54:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2499 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2499 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 0f1ff0b0158b41ac6b9548d0972cdd31 You're my Dream http://75.36.252.133/ From akstcanastaticamnsdgs@anastatica.it Tue Jan 29 05:16:04 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJnVU-0006du-92; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:15:56 -0500 Received: from [221.152.166.177] (helo=7qr7709ofrkfy3q.kornet) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJnVT-0000M2-1I; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:15:55 -0500 Received: from [221.152.166.177] by mail.anastatica.it; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:26:27 +0900 Message-ID: <01c862ac$d7e38bd0$b1a698dd@akstcanastaticamnsdgs> From: "Sergio Russell" To: Subject: Re: playtime can create Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:26:27 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 MedsOnsaleToday DontMissOut http://lakegeneral.com it would be useful as regulated products render you any further services.that your complaint irritating and consequently complaint purely You also made a FOS with reference and credible investigation data, complaint about I have tried to take anincluding registration of corporation, of the events in yourthagency for China or and status inquiry hasn’t resolved provided, this letter sets hasn’t resolved by either the FSA or From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 05:58:59 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJoAr-00033V-SB; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:58:41 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJoAq-0002y4-JW for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:58:40 -0500 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJoAp-0001Mf-D7 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:58:40 -0500 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x19so2387566pyg.24 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:58:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=VBjgub9wIkK7OrrJT8i7w5Ezejo9HhBj4e0Ppt65tcw=; b=riXdW/RqqEDCl+wrCaPQaconem0yZqiWFy/PVwI+2k+Z1ScBo89M8Ov38zvvMyutDOgAjlCb5bJBjRE0xrT3rN6gdE3wepkeqXiJGPtLZBXUdMPWNGMW75FnWSQ2pYn0kt0JE/oGHeVlUr51yi8b3pR22DVec1Mi6dVE/i2VDqY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=gcldEnp0JsGnVHyq8nVbHHr2mNpvLzTH9ZtfiVwFCyVydcN4Q8Y4lVf270vI5fG+qCtN2V0TxPmdENeHpc6SAyBDFHB+tIsODgrHT13Z8tPH/SkGVwukApHOyP0dIZJPWVavxiFN87wmCgEsFvvxKMhh75PS1aZHyaZfPsqFtHg= Received: by 10.142.230.11 with SMTP id c11mr3116398wfh.25.1201604317985; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:58:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.165.1 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:58:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:58:37 +0000 From: "George Tsirtsis" To: "Benjamin Lim" Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <479E56F1.5080906@azairenet.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 17bdfcaea25d1444baef0e24abc38874 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Ben, et.al., While the issue you point out is real (everyone seems to agree with that) it falls under the category of traceable attacks, as others have already pointed out. In MIPv6 we never really considered the issue of a "fake" CoAs as a very important one (Only MIPv4 FA Mode deals with that). Indeed, several attacks, like the redirection attack you point out are possible, even without MCoA support. But other attacks are also possible without MCoA support e.g., an MN associates with two different HAs and registers the HoA from the first as the CoA for the second and vice versa, creating a routing loop. So, I share the sentiment of the group that mitigation techniques should be defined outside the MCoA spec, and I would suggest we actually expand the scope of these techniques to cover also other cases involving CoA based attacks. In any case the attack you describe for the MCoA case does not become really interesting unless it is combined with flow filtering which is out of scope of the MCoA draft. In fact I think the following should be removed form the MCoA draft.....possibly moved to the flow filtering draft.: " This valid care-of address could then be used by the malicious mobile node to set up flow filtering rules at its home agent, thereby controlling and/or launching new re-direction attacks." Regards George On Jan 29, 2008 3:03 AM, Benjamin Lim wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > =8==8<=8== > > FWIW, for the current draft, I think it is sufficient to > > point out the threats in the security considerations section. > > The home agent knows which mobile node launched the attch, so > > that should be a deterrent. We should not require the CoA to > > be a CGA, require CBA or mandate a return routability test > > for the CoA for the multiple CoA extension. > [Ben] I am not mandating a solution for CoA testing yet. My intention in my > draft was to analyze and discuss the best way to solve the problem. Till > then, I feel it might be better to list the current possible approaches to > the problem in the MCoA draft. These approaches serves as some options that > implementers can take to help advert such problem. > > > > > I also think we should add an informative reference pointing > > to draft-lim-mext-multiple-coa-verify-00 for preventing the attack. > [Ben] A standard track document pointing to a draft that may expire for > solutions. I am not sure if this is the correct way to go. > > Regards, > Benjamin Lim > > > > > > Vijay > > > > Benjamin Lim wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Some points inline to start of discussion. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA [mailto:ryuji.wakikawa@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:27 AM > > >> To: mext@ietf.org > > >> Subject: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> At the last IETF meeting, Benjamin presented the security > > >> vulnerability of MCoA, re-direction attack. > > >> Benjamin's text is merged into the security consideration > > section. > > >> Thanks Benjamin. > > >> > > >> However, we didn't merge the solution part in the MCoA. > > >> The proposed solution is more like an extension and should > > be written > > >> in the separate document. > > >> We believe the issue of re-direction attack should not be often > > >> happened because a malicious mobile node is always traceable by an > > >> operator (i.e. HA). > > >> A mobile node must take certain risk to do re-direction attack. > > > [Ben] Such risk taken by the mobile node does factor into > > the account > > > on wether the attack will occur. However, I find it hard to justify > > > that such risk will prevent such attack from happening > > often. If more > > > and more attackers are willingly to take such risk (e.g. > > strong sense > > > of purpose or even 'big ego') or there exisit better mechnisam that > > > helps mask the attacker identity in the future, can we say > > that such > > > attacks will not happen often? > > > > > >> For the MCoA document it should be sufficient to just > > point out this > > >> threats. > > > [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard > > tracks document > > > for a protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop > > > hole) without providing some soultions or guideline to it > > seems funny. > > > Its like saying "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to > > > slove/prevent it, crack your own brains" Hence, my intention of the > > > below proposed text is to serve as a guide that such exploit can be > > > reduce/prevent with some methods. This I feel helps > > implementers as we > > > provide some basic steps to help advert such misuse. > > > > > > Would appericate any comments to help in this discussion. Thanks! > > > > > > Regards, > > > Benjamin Lim > > >> If you have any comments, let us know. > > >> I attach the Benjamin's proposed text. > > >> > > >> thanks > > >> ryuji > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> To mitigate such risk described in Section 9, one approach > > is for the > > >> care-of address to be secured cryptographically (CGA) [RFC-3972], > > >> thus permitting the home agent to know if the mobile node actually > > >> owns that particular care-of address listed in the binding update > > >> message. > > >> However, > > >> introducing cryptographically generated care-of addresses might > > >> increase the complexity of the mechanism to achieve > > multiple bindings > > >> such as how a message can contain multiple CGA signatures > > for each of > > >> the care-of addresses, integration between the CGA module and > > >> Mobility Support module in a network stack implementation > > and further > > >> increasing the size of the binding update message. > > Furthermore, using > > >> CGA does not prevent a malicious mobile node to launch a flooding > > >> attack against a subnet by generating multiple > > non-existent care-of > > >> addresses in that subnet using the mobile node's own public keys. > > >> > > >> Another approach to mitigate the risk is to employ some means at a > > >> home agent to limit the amount of information that a home > > agent can > > >> send to a care-of address that has not be tested for its > > >> reachability. This reduces the chances of the home agent from > > >> flooding packets to a particular untested care-of address. > > A possible > > >> technique to achieve this is to use credit- based > > authorization (CBA) > > >> [RFC-4866]. In this technique, for the home agent to fully use the > > >> care-of address for packet routing, the home agent would need to > > >> receive a packet from the mobile node from the untested care-of > > >> address. > > >> However, the packets that the home agent receives from > > these untested > > >> care-of addresses might not be sent by the mobile node. > > Hence, this > > >> technique and the following few proposed techniques will > > henceforth > > >> assumes that ingress filtering within the network is done. For > > >> example, a mobile node can use the Internet Control > > Message Protocol > > >> (ICMP) described in [RFC-792] to send a request message > > via its home > > >> address to a untested victim care-of address, thereby triggering a > > >> response from this care-of address. Also, in situations where an > > >> interface of the mobile node has asymmetrical link characteristics > > >> (e.g. General Packet Radio System), that particular > > interface might > > >> have resource constraint on its upload path making it costly for a > > >> mobile node to send a packet to its home agent using that > > particular > > >> interface. > > >> > > >> In yet another approach, instead of the home agent waiting for a > > >> packet to fully utilize a care-of address for routing, it might be > > >> possible for the home agent to send a packet to a untested care-of > > >> address to trigger a response from the mobile node from > > that care-of > > >> address. One technique described in [ID-RRCOOKIE] uses a cookie to > > >> prove to the home agent that the mobile node is reachable at a > > >> specified care-of address. Another technique could employ > > the use of > > >> the Binding Refresh Request message to trigger the mobile node to > > >> send a binding update message from that care-of address to > > the mobile > > >> node. However, this technique of testing reduces the optimization > > >> benefit of sending bulk registration as it would require > > the mobile > > >> node to respond via all these care-of addresses. In this case, the > > >> mobile node might as well send the binding update message > > >> individually for each care-of address. > > >> > > >> To optimize the previous approach in order to keep the benefits of > > >> bulk registration, the home agent could test the care-of > > address by > > >> asking a mobile node to reply from a different care-of address as > > >> oppose to the care-of address that was used by the home > > agent to send > > >> the trigger message. > > >> This utilizes the concept of multiple care-of addresses > > whereby the > > >> mobile node need not respond back using the same path as the > > >> reception of the request. Such a concept is particularly useful in > > >> the event that the mobile node has several unverified care-of > > >> addresses that needs to be tested. > > >> By > > >> asking the mobile node to respond via another care-of > > address, in one > > >> round trip time, the home agent would be able to verify > > two care-of > > >> addresses. > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> MEXT mailing list > > >> MEXT@ietf.org > > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > MEXT mailing list > > > MEXT@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 06:14:10 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJoPp-0004vw-3W; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:14:09 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJoPo-0004vF-3R for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:14:08 -0500 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJoPn-0001hH-M9 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:14:08 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,269,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="4249477" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2008 12:14:07 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0TBE7H7023140; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:14:07 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0TBDulb018235; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:14:07 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-337.cisco.com ([144.254.231.82]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:14:01 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] [Recharter] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:13:44 +0100 Message-ID: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051BFE18@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <695F5BC3-D6BD-4C54-9492-59934D7A32C6@it.uc3m.es> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] [Recharter] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support thread-index: AchcWrEXzzmNXjtJTBKhYe7Yo11BswGDM1jg From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2008 11:14:01.0879 (UTC) FILETIME=[0D44C270:01C86268] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1507; t=1201605247; x=1202469247; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Pascal=20Thubert=20(pthubert)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[MEXT]=20[Recharter]=20Extend=20DSMIPv6 =20Home=20Network=20Support |Sender:=20; bh=mzlYb7WspeDMP2GyfgeAAKI+A3lyrrUr0/y2sMSde8A=; b=hHDWhVzflLo/y89XasmWIaB5g7sxC2Kv3WrxH1esGC+J3oNXmOVf0T7acF kIag/0s8rdYTNEmACz89zwXDoajfZRbL1oRtLgp8XRL7DF+CT/it6CmjkR3/ 33N3jAYeDy; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=pthubert@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b Cc: X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Marcelo: This list seems to promote the use of DSMIP as a transition mechanism. Yet, the case where IPv4 is traverse but the HA end is pure IPv6 (Ipv6 dominant) is not clearly listed.=20 Some history here: We had that discussion long ago at the DSMIP DT and there was a vote that the HA be dual stack with access to both networks. OTOH, the doors proposal enabled a gateway ala 6to4 to terminate the IPv4 tunnel and make the HA transparent to the IPv4 traversal. Pascal =20 >-----Original Message----- >From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es]=20 >Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:15 >To: mext@ietf.org >Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support > >Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support > >DSMIPv6 assumes the home network to be dual stack providing=20 >simultaneous IPv6 and IPv4 network access. It is proposed to extend >DSMIPv6 to support home networks which provides IPv4, or IPv6=20 >respectively, direct network access only, but where virtual=20 >IPv6 home network connectivity, or virtual IPv4 home network=20 >connectivity respectively, may be obtained by tunneling to the=20 >HA. The latter shall be obtained by DSMIPv6 operation using=20 >the v4HoA address as Care-of- address for the v6HoA address,=20 >and vice versa, the v6HoA address as care-of-address for the=20 >v4HoA address. > >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >MEXT@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 07:04:47 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJpCh-0002Cf-Un; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:04:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJpCg-0002A9-Hh for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:04:38 -0500 Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com ([64.233.178.245] helo=hs-out-2122.google.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJpCg-0003sV-49 for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:04:38 -0500 Received: by hs-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 54so1928463hsz.5 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:04:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=KpKPRYFUa2ipK/5fyj0xOjm31rTu8on2nxnjb8UVhAA=; b=ur60VVfVskWGVhztPw6/xJwxXIhtDfxnTMGpAZmCYvCU4Z6Ytikhpw0h3vc/EkPsdMx219r5aI+viKRLgessLGTi6IudhBN0tOSZKCQSTuhvTutUWxoRDBlIX7623XQITTtmjCvYb4RDmaBraV0KA08OGrzRFOPwdNGs3CcdMN8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mbnYLWll/Om/VyXFvTamCbbug8JYjfv1I/lj3AsWlekxlH0jk41xldBGHsObIQXC3LKBsGvhvDHECbYzpforVg+DusTK0/CuDmqMIA13sMC8dTY1Qp2CVYVElOhYkYnP9W8vHOUfxkgux0M7P6aqsN566uzy3JA26RmleWeqkRo= Received: by 10.142.109.16 with SMTP id h16mr3157349wfc.117.1201608276942; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:04:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.165.1 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:04:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:04:36 +0000 From: "George Tsirtsis" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" Subject: Re: [MEXT] [Recharter] Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping for the Authentication Option Protocol In-Reply-To: <07B0C48E-40C1-479A-B414-4D113B3580D1@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <07B0C48E-40C1-479A-B414-4D113B3580D1@it.uc3m.es> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, I am repeating myself but given the fact that, as far as the IETF is concerned, IPSEC should be used for securing MIPv6 and not RFC4285 (see IESG Note inside it), I think the WG should not spend any time on this. If documenting this is needed by an external entity then it could be handled as a personal contribution. This is going straight to the bottom of my ordered list (to be provided soon). Regards George On Jan 21, 2008 6:14 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Existing bootstrapping mechanisms for Mobile IPv6 only address the use > of IKEv2/IPsec for protecting Mobile IPv6 signaling messages. > Bootstrapping a home address and security associationswhen RFC 4285 is > used are not addressed. This draft describes bootstrapping mechanisms > for using RFC 4285 with Mobile IPv6. > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 07:24:23 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJpVi-0002rd-7d; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:24:18 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJpVg-0002rE-To for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:24:16 -0500 Received: from hs-out-0708.google.com ([64.233.178.246] helo=hs-out-2122.google.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJpVg-0004zO-Hu for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:24:16 -0500 Received: by hs-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 54so1933824hsz.5 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:24:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=FULxOjntc7vD2DvnQ+9Ga7IMX16n6mQHsFBauF3iLoU=; b=lMqQDrdj/LAil0MG5Ih8pM+8pKGse0oD4AH7nY2VfcrGGp3ifyLUbqxKIMUO5vqr5/V4QkdZMpbp40bXOFqWaZWucqmDM9Ex/ycNlAzBMAiN8sFVuqXW7uyy0D5XnlJXsOU1PkXdaC6Q1v4G3X+d/z0dmKa3K2yD7rd0d3rOdHw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=H3b+Nbc1KrhM7qxTfg1qknobgr5IX4I58KVxWBe7UmeTbRc6mXqmImstHjVGi61ISafDfux0rbo3MyhXM4hD6u84HPDHoOLYh3Cu8qRS05pKCvqaE4xHaWKqoW84IRELQBwdq7staalux47EsPs6k2Kn3qU9F89ZdQ5n8hIz0bw= Received: by 10.143.162.8 with SMTP id p8mr3178619wfo.49.1201609455574; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.165.1 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:24:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:24:15 +0000 From: "George Tsirtsis" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" Subject: Re: [MEXT] [Recharter] MIPv6 home link operation in various SDOs In-Reply-To: <959F50FC-1688-408C-8711-647A2A608DF4@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <959F50FC-1688-408C-8711-647A2A608DF4@it.uc3m.es> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, I think this description and the associated presentation in the last IETF suffer from the same problems: - the problem is not at all clear. The SDO referred to below runs ND on point to point links as if they were broadcast links. Also not clear what the problem is on other point to point links - the description of the problem attempts to already point to the solution by referring to possible use of BU/BA Since the problem description is not clear and there is no published draft exploring the problem and solution space so we can have a reasonable discussion about this, I do not think the WG is ready to take up this issue. Someone needs to explain the problem in detail by publishing a draft. It is possible I we are missing an issue that needs some work but as of now I just do not see it. Unless something changes fast...this is also going low on my ordered list. Regards George On Jan 21, 2008 6:11 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Many SDOs are considering the use of point-to-point links between the > mobile node and the home agent as a home link for Mobile IPv6 to avoid > the tunneling overhead. Some of these point-to-point links do not > support running neighbor discovery. Attaching to the home link and > returning to the home procedures need to be analyzed for these point- > to-point links, possible with the use of binding update and binding > acknowledgment messages. > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From arayski@sup2000.com Tue Jan 29 10:25:47 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJsLL-0005vu-CK; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:25:47 -0500 Received: from [189.12.46.229] (helo=18912046229.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJsLJ-0005jc-Ar; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:25:46 -0500 Received: from [189.12.46.229] by mx13.abchk.net; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:24:15 -0300 From: "Kara Arellano" To: Subject: Album Torch Rope Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:24:15 -0300 Pocket Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:24:15 -0300 Message-ID: <01c86271$dc7c0180$e52e0cbd@arayski> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 EveryRX OnsaleRIghtNow http://lakegeneral.com From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 11:48:27 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJtdE-0006Jn-6i; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:48:20 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJtdC-0006JW-3A for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:48:18 -0500 Received: from mail2.azairenet.com ([207.47.15.6]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJtdB-00088F-NC for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:48:18 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([98.207.82.216]) by mail2.azairenet.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:48:16 -0800 Message-ID: <479F58C0.5060007@azairenet.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:48:00 -0800 From: Vijay Devarapalli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: George Tsirtsis Subject: Re: [MEXT] [Recharter] MIPv6 home link operation in various SDOs References: <959F50FC-1688-408C-8711-647A2A608DF4@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2008 16:48:16.0644 (UTC) FILETIME=[BED70C40:01C86296] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org George Tsirtsis wrote: > Someone needs to explain the problem in detail by publishing a draft. I am working on the draft. I should be able to submit it in the next few days. Vijay > It is possible I we are missing an issue that needs some work but as > of now I just do not see it. > > Unless something changes fast...this is also going low on my ordered list. > > Regards > George > > On Jan 21, 2008 6:11 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> Many SDOs are considering the use of point-to-point links between the >> mobile node and the home agent as a home link for Mobile IPv6 to avoid >> the tunneling overhead. Some of these point-to-point links do not >> support running neighbor discovery. Attaching to the home link and >> returning to the home procedures need to be analyzed for these point- >> to-point links, possible with the use of binding update and binding >> acknowledgment messages. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 12:10:13 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJtyO-0008TN-5X; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:10:12 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJtyM-0008Sc-Ba for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:10:11 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJtyK-00054w-Iw for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:10:10 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so2194110fgg.41 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:10:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; bh=wfcRdi6b/evdvBxjhLB5R+RoxZOUOZg3ucGdDL33gWM=; b=GqaJJ2PNATuhP5wfindWwoKKnmwB/RZsXBbZQg2Qe5b/Zv8CjtX9+/4/Lo5T6OpCF1F9oPVTlLoWGeCsC70jUp7UYmNUAdfa0OMApsvn+RoXZweZ/Gdef0W3TCckolVUg9v1KjsYKNOoy1MfsqGSQWmnwX64aVPsZAVehpxNNvo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=YvMjxjV27Zig87KKR9WYbajCgGi7s82PHhtn2lRqy0/tS48tDRePvqQel3/LDJMSdoPnh6se9/i6qHtpNgffU4mC3YxaU0p9DSc4sHeaJFz//bdsyHfRCWapL7/BX7ltGHXvtgn85WYdGUC/YA7qSYiAE+rRu/XjGePoNbs/rZ4= Received: by 10.86.84.5 with SMTP id h5mr6626321fgb.49.1201626606283; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:10:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.10.38.186? ( [200.78.232.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12sm10490035fgg.6.2008.01.29.09.10.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:10:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <479F5DEB.8070104@laposte.net> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:10:03 +0100 From: Julien Laganier User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Lim Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hello, Benjamin Lim wrote: > Hi, > > Reply inline. > > =8==8<=8== >>> [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard >> tracks document >>> for a protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop >>> hole) without providing some soultions or guideline to it >> seems funny. >>> Its like saying "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to >>> slove/prevent it, crack your own brains" >> not really. >> imho we should state that the attacker can be traced since a pre >> existent SA with the HA is needed to launch this attack, so >> basically >> we say that if you do your SA lightly, you may have this problem and >> you would need to take additional security measures. > [Ben] I do not think that the SA between MN and HA would stop such problem. > What you propose only limits the effect of the problem and not prevent it. > Even if the malicious MN and HA has a pre-establish SA, how is the HA going > to know to start tracing to find the root of the problem? Only when victims > complain to the HA, then the HA would begin finding the cause to such > problem correct? So the problem has occurred and now the home agent will try > to limit the effect of the problem from spreading even further. But MIPv6 trust model presuppose that the MN can trusted by the HA, and thus they have a SA. Thus I don't see how we can stop any such problems without changing the MIPv6 trust model, which doesn't look realistic. > Also, the attacker need not be the user of the mobile node. One example is > the bot-net scenario where the attacker controls unwilling legit mobile > nodes to perform such attack. The HA can trace back to these unwilling > mobile nodes and take action (e.g. deny these unwilling mobile nodes > service). Yes, by denying the attacker of its tools, you can prevent the > attack from escalating further. However, shutting down your own network to > prevent such action is tad bit costly to the operator no? Maybe this was the > intention of the attacker in the first place. This point seems moot. If the goal of the attacker is to deny service to "unwilling legit mobile nodes" that it is in control of, then it doesn't need any of that re-direction stuff: Since it controls them it can simply deny them service. Or am I missing something? > Hence, base on the above points, wouldn’t it be better if the home agent can > prevent such problem from happening in the first place? See my comments on your two points above. Best, --julien _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 14:05:26 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJvli-0007nI-MI; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:05:14 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJvlh-0007gQ-Kl for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:05:13 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJvlf-0008R2-Ak for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:05:13 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.76])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C982C570A;Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:05:10 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <45AA6B93-3BC8-48C6-A6F2-DDDC3C14803B@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051BFE18@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] [Recharter] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:59:10 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051BFE18@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-16.0218 TC:1F TRN:34 TV:5.0.1023(15698.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org I guess that the one who proposed this item should respond to this... El 29/01/2008, a las 12:13, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: > Hi Marcelo: > > This list seems to promote the use of DSMIP as a transition mechanism. > Yet, the case where IPv4 is traverse but the HA end is pure IPv6 (Ipv6 > dominant) is not clearly listed. > > Some history here: > > We had that discussion long ago at the DSMIP DT and there was a vote > that the HA be dual stack with access to both networks. OTOH, the =20 > doors > proposal enabled a gateway ala 6to4 to terminate the IPv4 tunnel and > make the HA transparent to the IPv4 traversal. > > Pascal > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] >> Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2008 19:15 >> To: mext@ietf.org >> Subject: [MEXT] [Recharter] Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support >> >> Extend DSMIPv6 Home Network Support >> >> DSMIPv6 assumes the home network to be dual stack providing >> simultaneous IPv6 and IPv4 network access. It is proposed to extend >> DSMIPv6 to support home networks which provides IPv4, or IPv6 >> respectively, direct network access only, but where virtual >> IPv6 home network connectivity, or virtual IPv4 home network >> connectivity respectively, may be obtained by tunneling to the >> HA. The latter shall be obtained by DSMIPv6 operation using >> the v4HoA address as Care-of- address for the v6HoA address, >> and vice versa, the v6HoA address as care-of-address for the >> v4HoA address. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 16:53:52 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJyOi-0003p6-1n; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:53:40 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJyOh-0003od-4D for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:53:39 -0500 Received: from neon.tcs.hut.fi ([130.233.215.20] helo=mail.tcs.hut.fi) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJyOg-0006LU-Aq for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:53:38 -0500 Received: from rhea.tcs.hut.fi (rhea.tcs.hut.fi [130.233.215.147]) by mail.tcs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4AFC2C020DB0; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:53:35 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:53:35 +0200 (EET) From: Wassim Haddad To: Julien Laganier Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA In-Reply-To: <479F5DEB.8070104@laposte.net> Message-ID: References: <479F5DEB.8070104@laposte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Julien, On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Julien Laganier wrote: >>>> [Ben] This is my point of view. As this is a standard tracks document >>>> for a protocol, stating a possible miuse of the protocol (aka loop hole) >>>> without providing some soultions or guideline to it seems funny. >>>> Its like saying "hey you can exploit this protocol this way. How to >>>> slove/prevent it, crack your own brains" not really. >>> imho we should state that the attacker can be traced since a pre existent >>> SA with the HA is needed to launch this attack, so basically we say that >>> if you do your SA lightly, you may have this problem and you would need >>> to take additional security measures. >> [Ben] I do not think that the SA between MN and HA would stop such problem. >> What you propose only limits the effect of the problem and not prevent it. >> Even if the malicious MN and HA has a pre-establish SA, how is the HA going >> to know to start tracing to find the root of the problem? Only when victims >> complain to the HA, then the HA would begin finding the cause to such >> problem correct? So the problem has occurred and now the home agent will >> try >> to limit the effect of the problem from spreading even further. > > But MIPv6 trust model presuppose that the MN can trusted by the HA, and > thus they have a SA. Thus I don't see how we can stop any such problems > without changing the MIPv6 trust model, which doesn't look realistic. => IMHO, it is equally unrealistic to have a trust model which does not fully grasp the reality. Or perhaps someone can explain how can we know a priori that *any* potential attacker will be deterred for fear of being traced! Regards, Wassim H. >> Also, the attacker need not be the user of the mobile node. One example is >> the bot-net scenario where the attacker controls unwilling legit mobile >> nodes to perform such attack. The HA can trace back to these unwilling >> mobile nodes and take action (e.g. deny these unwilling mobile nodes >> service). Yes, by denying the attacker of its tools, you can prevent the >> attack from escalating further. However, shutting down your own network to >> prevent such action is tad bit costly to the operator no? Maybe this was >> the >> intention of the attacker in the first place. > > This point seems moot. If the goal of the attacker is to deny service to > "unwilling legit mobile nodes" that it is in control of, then it doesn't > need any of that re-direction stuff: Since it controls them it can > simply deny them service. Or am I missing something? > >> Hence, base on the above points, wouldn?t it be better if the home agent >> can >> prevent such problem from happening in the first place? > > See my comments on your two points above. > > Best, > > --julien > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 21:18:19 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK2WZ-0003d1-Ti; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:18:03 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK2WX-0003Pn-EE for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:18:01 -0500 Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK2WT-0004eH-5X for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:17:57 -0500 Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com ([157.8.1.145]) by smtp.mei.co.jp (8.12.11.20060614/3.7W/kc-maile12) with ESMTP id m0U2Ho2K029833; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:17:50 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlb1) with ESMTP id m0U2Hpf03442; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:17:51 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/kc-maili06) with ESMTP id m0U2HmV10576; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:17:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from NW-Sephiroth ([10.81.113.116]) by pslexc01.psl.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:16:53 +0800 Received: from NWSephiroth by NW-Sephiroth (PGP Universal service); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:16:50 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by NW-Sephiroth on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:16:50 +0800 From: "Benjamin Lim" To: "'George Tsirtsis'" Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:16:50 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AchiZcljjDabtys5Srqw7qt63O6YQwAfmRig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 02:16:53.0907 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E503E30:01C862E6] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi George, =8==8<=8== > In any case the attack you describe for the MCoA case does > not become really interesting unless it is combined with flow > filtering which is out of scope of the MCoA draft. In fact I > think the following should be removed form the MCoA > draft.....possibly moved to the flow filtering draft.: > " This valid care-of address could then be used by the > malicious mobile > node to set up flow filtering rules at its home agent, thereby > controlling and/or launching new re-direction attacks." [Ben] I was using flow filtering to illustrate the effect of the problem (MN binding fake CoA) I feel this allow readers to grasp the whole situation more clearly. Thus, I feel this example should remain in the MCoA draft for clarity purpose. Regards, Benjamin Lim > > Regards > George _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 29 22:11:35 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK3MG-0003gs-VA; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:11:28 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK3MF-0003gl-1P for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:11:27 -0500 Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK3ME-0005bJ-5s for mext@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:11:26 -0500 Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com ([157.8.1.145]) by smtp.mei.co.jp (8.12.11.20060614/3.7W/kc-maile14) with ESMTP id m0U3BOop014737; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:11:24 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlb2) with ESMTP id m0U3BO300108; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:11:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/kc-maili06) with ESMTP id m0U3BMV26615; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:11:22 +0900 (JST) Received: from NW-Sephiroth ([10.81.113.116]) by pslexc01.psl.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:10:27 +0800 Received: from NWSephiroth by NW-Sephiroth (PGP Universal service); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:10:24 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by NW-Sephiroth on Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:10:24 +0800 From: "Benjamin Lim" To: "'Julien Laganier'" Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:10:24 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Thread-Index: AchilZRu6XwMDpXEQHqExQ86cWcO8QAUJvzg In-Reply-To: <479F570B.1030405@laposte.net> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 03:10:27.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA042A30:01C862ED] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Julien,=20 Replies inline. =3D8=3D=3D8<=3D8=3D=3D > But MIPv6 trust model presuppose that the MN can trusted by=20 > the HA, and thus they have a SA. Thus I don't see how we can=20 > stop any such problems without changing the MIPv6 trust=20 > model, which doesn't look realistic. [Ben] MIPv6 assumes that MN and HA have a trust relationship, hence HA = does not need to check the CoA that MN binds. Furthermore, a single MIPv6 = session only allows MN to bind a single CoA to its HoA at HA, hence further = implying that HA need not check CoA. However in MCoA, MN can now bind many CoAs = at HA. Can we assume the same trust level that the HA gives in MIPv6 = applies to MCoA? The original trust model of MIPv6 holds in MIPv6 operation due to = the specific conditions (e.g. only binding 1 CoA). However, if we change the condition, we might need use other mechanisms to enhance the original = trust model to ensure that it holds. This is what I call adaptability (which = what most mammals are good at..;p) >=20 > > Also, the attacker need not be the user of the mobile node. One=20 > > example is the bot-net scenario where the attacker controls=20 > unwilling=20 > > legit mobile nodes to perform such attack. The HA can trace back to=20 > > these unwilling mobile nodes and take action (e.g. deny these=20 > > unwilling mobile nodes service). Yes, by denying the=20 > attacker of its=20 > > tools, you can prevent the attack from escalating further. However,=20 > > shutting down your own network to prevent such action is tad bit=20 > > costly to the operator no? Maybe this was the intention of=20 > the attacker in the first place. >=20 > This point seems moot. If the goal of the attacker is to deny=20 > service to "unwilling legit mobile nodes" that it is in=20 > control of, then it doesn't need any of that re-direction=20 > stuff: Since it controls them it can simply deny them=20 > service. Or am I missing something? [Ben] The intention use previously was meant to say the goal of the = attacker is to make it a hassle for the operator in providing service to its subscribers. If one MCoA MN is denied of service, the attacker can just 'capture' another MCoA MN to do its dirty work Since the operator is tracing, it is likely that the operator can figure out the root of the = issue (e.g. the use of MCoA) base on the trend of the attack. Hence, the = operator might limited the usage of MCoA until it finds the 'mastermind' behind = all of this attack. I apologize the misuse of words in my last example = ('shut down' might be too harsh). All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the = effect of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. Regards, Benjamin Lim >=20 > > Hence, base on the above points, wouldn=92t it be better if the home = > > agent can prevent such problem from happening in the first place? >=20 > See my comments on your two points above. >=20 > Best, >=20 > --julien _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 03:32:32 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK8Mr-0001A7-DX; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:32:25 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK8Mp-0001A0-GG for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:32:23 -0500 Received: from neon.tcs.hut.fi ([130.233.215.20] helo=mail.tcs.hut.fi) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK8Mp-0003IY-2C for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 03:32:23 -0500 Received: from rhea.tcs.hut.fi (rhea.tcs.hut.fi [130.233.215.147]) by mail.tcs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43842C021097; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:32:20 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:32:20 +0200 (EET) From: Wassim Haddad To: Benjamin Lim Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: 'Julien Laganier' , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: > All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the effect > of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. => which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. Regards, Wassim H. _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 04:10:43 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK8xr-0008Sa-06; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:10:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK8xp-0008SV-41 for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:10:37 -0500 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JK8xo-0003Hq-BA for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 04:10:37 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,276,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="4351179" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2008 10:10:35 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0U9AZe9024035; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:10:35 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0U9ALlJ016705; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:10:23 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-337.cisco.com ([144.254.231.82]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:10:21 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:09:59 +0100 Message-ID: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA thread-index: AchjGrmd/V58sdbLS0eHQZqe+pd/9QAA+A9A From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Wassim Haddad" , "Benjamin Lim" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 09:10:21.0589 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0D81C50:01C8631F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1321; t=1201684235; x=1202548235; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pthubert@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Pascal=20Thubert=20(pthubert)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[MEXT]=20re-direction=20attack=20on=20M CoA |Sender:=20; bh=MQTDEhz8qOtNqe4qSiSgkzA7+bLAoBksAsCupSYGV9Q=; b=lzK1UpJqf/rJjpMx6f8l4xJz4j3K5HJgt7n/hovUX8n0obt42V5xVQSNrO KuN6IJhPxAmKiaqEC9xa9IFZSmRheELdeQDa1SObka/l+oQUF9P9kVVRuDsy lOVULUXxuw; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=pthubert@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org I agree with Wassim on both mails. There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a network is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP is also exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were a 3-way or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have proposed such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered 2nd BU flow to verify the CoA in the first one: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-07# section-6=20 Pascal =20 >-----Original Message----- >From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi]=20 >Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 >To: Benjamin Lim >Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org >Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA > >On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: > >> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the=20 >> effect of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. > >=3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. > > >Regards, > >Wassim H. > > >_______________________________________________ >MEXT mailing list >MEXT@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 07:29:53 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKC4Y-00049R-8M; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:29:46 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKC4W-00049H-4h for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:29:44 -0500 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233] helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKC4U-0007tR-Mc for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:29:44 -0500 Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m0UCTPRr014844 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:29:41 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:22:29 +0200 Received: from esebe105.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.53]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:21:22 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:21:21 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IPsec use in draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00 Thread-Index: AchjOp+tBBZPPj39Q6+7x6ZGZVfkIg== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 12:21:22.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[9FE950A0:01C8633A] X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: dd887a8966a4c4c217a52303814d0b5f Subject: [MEXT] IPsec use in draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org I do not think the spec is ready to be submitted to IESG without non-trivial work on the IPsec aspects. My main concerns are the following: First, while the basic idea behind the DSMIPv6-IPsec interaction seems doable, I am not convinced that an average implementor (i.e., someone who hasn't participated in writing this specification and doesn't have a PhD) could actually figure out how it works based on the current text. I would strongly suggest expanding the description in Section 5.1, and including e.g. message diagrams showing in what order the various local state updates and messages have to happen. In the off-list discussions thinking how to use IPsec, both Karen and I wrote such descriptions; merging them (and updating the details to match the latest discussions) could be a good starting point. I'm including my notes (which may not be fully up-to-date) at the end of this message; feel free to use them and/or Karen's text as starting points. Second, in places, the spec is close to the line drawn in water between using IPsec and actually changing the IPsec architecture. In particular, there are architectural details related to NATs that AFAIK are not present in any other use of IPsec (including plain Mobile IPv6). For example, - On MN side, it's assumed that after IPsec processing, some packets (in particular, BUs) are *not* processed as usual via IP forwarding, but are rather handed back to "DSMIPv6" code for special encapsulation. In other words, the treatment in IP forwarding ("Forwarding" box in RFC 4301, Section 5.1) depends on something else than the destination address, and more importantly, on something that isn't visible in the packet itself (after it has been encrypted) but is expected to survive IPsec processing. - On HA side, it's assumed that IPsec processing doesn't just decrypt the packet (and hand it over to IP forwarding), but also somehow preserves DSMIPv6-specific information (in particular,=20 the IP address/port in the outermost IPv4 header) across the IPsec processing and eventually to the module processing BUs. While these can certainly be implemented, they are architecturally ugly, and may prevent using existing IPsec implementations as-is. I'm not sure if we can avoid this (many other solutions for=20 IPsec/DSMIPv6 integration were proposed and discussed, and none of them was IMHO significantly better), but I believe the specification should explicitly discuss these complications and their implications. More detailed comments (which should be easier to fix than the concerns above) follow: 1) Section 5.1, "After the mobile node detects movement it configures a new care-of address. In addition, the mobile node updates its local Security Association information to include its IPv4 address and the home agent's IPv4 address." The security associations used for protecting BUs/BAcks are between MN's IPv6 Home Address and HA's IPv6 address -- and those are not updated. It may have to update the remote tunnel header address for tunnel mode IPsec SAs, but according to the current text, that should happen only after BAck has been received. 2) Section 5.1, "The home agent may also need to change NAT traversal fields in the IKE_SA." You can't figure out what this means unless you participated in the related email discussions. For HA, it probably means enabling "dynamic" update of address=20 and port (in IKE_SA and tunnel mode IPsec SAs) based on incoming authenticated packets (even if they're not BUs), as described in RFC 4306 Section 2.23. Text later actually requires the home agent to support this feature; however, there should be some discussion about its implications, as there are now *two* different ways how tunnel mode SAs can get updated (this "dynamic update" and ordinary BUs). 3) The spec has to say something about using port 500 vs. port 4500 for IPsec traffic, since the text in RFC 4306 Section 2.23 won't work as is (MOBIKE had to deal with this issue as well, see RFC 4555 Section 3.3). 4) Text has to mention that MN needs to enable/disable sending=20 IPsec keep-alives (for port 4500) depending on whether it's behind a NAT or not. Best regards,=20 Pasi ---------------------- What follows are my random notes about how this might work (not necessarily fully up-to-date vs. rest of the spec): NOTE: This description assumies two (conceptual) DSMIPv6 tunnels. One is used for sending BUs/BAcks (and always uses UDP encapsulation); the other one is used for all other traffic. During handovers these two tunnels are not updated at the same time, and thus may temporarily use different IP addresses. =20 They can also use different type of encapsulation. 1. if in IPv4 network: update the "BU-DSMIPv6 tunnel" tunnel: local address =3D V4CoA:DSMIPv6-port remote address =3D V4HA:DSMIPv6-port 2. if in IPv4 network: the MN deletes all route optimization=20 entries from its binding cache. =20 3. The MN sends a Binding Update, which looks like this: if in IPv6 network: IPv6 header (src=3DV6CoA, dst=3DV6HA) Destination Options header Home Address option (V6HoA) ESP header (transport mode) Mobility header Binding Update Alternate Care-of Address option (V6CoA) [IPv4 Home Address option (V4HoA)] if in IPv4 network: the code sending the BU has to indicate that after IPsec processing, the packets has to be sent via "BU-DSMIPv6 tunnel" (and this indication has to survive IPsec processing). =20 IPv4 header (src=3DV4CoA, dst=3DV4HA) UDP header (src=3DDSMIPv6-PORT, dst=3DDSMIPv6-PORT) IPv6 header (src=3DV6HoA, dst=3DV6HA) ESP header (transport mode) Mobility header Binding Update IPv4 Care-of Address option (V4CoA) [IPv4 Home Address option (V4HoA)] 4. The HA receives a Binding Update=20 In IPv4 case, its header may have been changed by NAT to: IPv4 header (src=3DNATTED_V4CoA, dst=3DV4HA) UDP header (src=3DNATTED_DSMIPv6-PORT, dst=3DDSMIPv6-PORT) IPv6 header (src=3DV6HoA, dst=3DV6HA) [...] 5. After DSMIPv6 decapsulation (in case of IPv4) and IPsec =20 processing, the packet will look like this: if in IPv6 network: IPv6 header (src=3DV6CoA, dst=3DV6HA) Destination Options header Home Address option (V6HoA) Mobility header Binding Update Alternate Care-of Address option (V6CoA) [IPv4 Home Address option (V4HoA)] if in IPv4 network: IPv6 header (src=3DV6HoA, dst=3DV6HA) Mobility header Binding Update IPv4 Care-of Address option (V4CoA) [IPv4 Home Address option (V4HoA)] the DSMIPv6 decapsulation has to store NATTED_V4CoA and=20 NATTED_DSMIPv6-PORT and somehow pass it on (surviving IPsec processing). 6. If IPv4: The HA determines whether UDP encapsulation is=20 used (if the MN requested it, or local policy requires it,=20 or NATTED_V4CoA and V4CoA do not match). 7. The HA updates its local forwarding state: if IPv4: =20 update bindings/something so that traffic to V4HoA/V6HoA gets sent via "Normal-DSMIPv6 tunnel" update both the "Normal-DSMIPv6" and "BU-DSMIPv6" tunnels as follows: local address =3D V4HA:DSMIPv6-PORT remote address =3D NATTED_V4CoA:NATTED-DSMIPv6-PORT update the "Normal-DSMIPv6" tunnel as follows: encapsulation =3D "IPvX-in-IPv4" / "UDP" / "TLV" else update bindings/something so that traffic to V4HoA/V6HoA gets tunneled as IPvX-in-IPv6 to V6CoA. 8. If the "HA" will set the "K" bit, it updates the IKE_SA as follows: local address =3D V4HA/V6HA:4500 remote address =3D NATTED_V4CoA/V6CoA:4500=20 NAT traversal (dynamic updates) =3D yes/no (NOTE: remote port number is wrong if doing NAT-T; this will be updated below) 9. The HA updates its *tunnel* mode IPsec SAD entries with MN: local tunnel header address =3D V4HA/V6HA:4500 remote tunnel header address =3D NATTED_V4CoA/V6CoA:4500 UDP encapsulation =3D yes/no (NOTE: remote port number is wrong if doing NAT-T; this will be updated below) 10. The HA may also need to update information in its SPD, so that any new SAs get created with these tunnel header addresses. (This depends a bit on how IKE determines the correct peer when SA creation is needed.) 11. HA generates a Binding Acknowledgement. =20 if in IPv6 network: IPv6 header (src=3DV6HA, dst=3DV6CoA) Routing header (type 2): V6HoA Mobility header Binding Acknowledgement [IPv4 Home Address option] [IPv4 Acknowledgement option] if in IPv4 network: the code sending the BAck has to indicate that after IPsec processing, the packets has to be sent via "BU-DSMIPv6 tunnel" (and this indication has to survive IPsec processing). IPv6 header (src=3DV6HA, dst=3DV6HoA) Mobility header Binding Acknowledgement [IPv4 Home Address option] [IPv4 Acknowledgement option] [NAT detection option] 12. After IPsec processing and DSMIPv6 encapsulation, it will look as follows: if in IPv6 network: IPv6 header (src=3DV6HA, dst=3DV6CoA) Routing header (type 2): V6HoA ESP header (transport mode) Mobility header Binding Acknowledgement [IPv4 Home Address option] [IPv4 Acknowledgement option] if in IPv4 network: IPv4 header (src=3DV4HA, dst=3DNATTED_V4CoA) UDP header (src=3DDSMIPv6-PORT, dst=3DNATTED_DSMIPv6-PORT) IPv6 header (src=3DV6HA, dst=3DV6HoA) ESP header (transport mode) Mobility header Binding Acknowledgement [IPv4 Home Address option] [IPv4 Acknowledgement option] [NAT detection option] 13. After receiving the BAck, the MN updates its "Normal-DSMIPv6"=20 tunnel as follows: if in IPv4 network: update bindings/something so that traffic from V4HoA/V6HoA gets sent via "Normal-DSMIPv6 tunnel" update the "Normal-DSMIPv6 tunnel as follows: local address =3D V4CoA:DSMIPv6-port remote address =3D V4HA:DSMIPv6-port encapsulation =3D "IPvX-in-IPv4" / "UDP" / "TLV" else=20 update bindings/something so that traffic from V4HoA/V6HoA gets sent as usual IPvX-in-IPv6 to home agent. 14. The MN updates IKE/IPsec state as follows: if "K" bit not set:=20 negotiate a new IKE_SA and new IPsec SAs replace all the=20 existing IPsec SAs (both transport and tunnel mode),=20 and close the old IKE_SA. else if "K" bit set, and no MOBIKE: update the IKE_SA as follows: local address =3D V4CoA/V6CoA:4500 remote address =3D V4HA/V6HA:4500 NAT traversal (keepalives) =3D yes/no (depending on NAT.D. = option) update *tunnel* mode IPsec SAD entries with HA as follows: local tunnel header address =3D V4CoA/V6CoA remote tunnel header address =3D V4HA/V6HA UDP encapsulation =3D yes/no (depending on NAT Detection option) send an empty informational message (note that this step must not be done before receiving the BAck) the MN may also need to update information in its SPD, so that any new SAs get created with these tunnel header addresses. (This depends a bit on how IKE determines the correct peer when SA creation is needed.) else (MOBIKE): update IKE_SA and tunnel mode SAs with MOBIKE 15. If the MN sent an empty Informational request, the HA will =20 update its IKE_SA as follows: remote_address =3D NATTED_V4CoA:NATTED_PORT_4500 =20 and tunnel mode IPsec SAD entries as follows: remote_address =3D NATTED_V4CoA:NATTED_PORT_4500 =20 16. Finally, the MN can start doing something about route optimization: if in IPv4 network: MN sends Binding Updates to delete bindings with all=20 Correspondent Nodes that were using route optimization.=20 else: MN could send Binding Updates to update bindings with Corrrespondent Nodes for route optimization.=20 17. End? _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 08:09:04 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKCgT-0005f8-8S; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:08:57 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKCgS-0005f3-PS for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:08:56 -0500 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230] helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKCgS-0003oJ-0j for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:08:56 -0500 Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m0UD8K2b011396 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:08:52 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:21:21 +0200 Received: from esebe105.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.53]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:21:21 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:21:20 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Nits for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00 Thread-Index: AchjMj1PPgJwvqYuSMiSOPxNGHxYcA== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 11:21:21.0436 (UTC) FILETIME=[3DAD95C0:01C86332] X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7fa173a723009a6ca8ce575a65a5d813 Subject: [MEXT] Nits for draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal-00 X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org I also have some notes related to the use of IPsec, but I'm=20 sending them in a separate message. All the comments below are=20 basically just semi-editorial nits, and should be easy to fix. 1) Section 2.1, "For instance, if the service name is "mip6ha" and the protocol name is "ipv6" for the SRV record, the mobile node SHOULD send a DNS request with the QNAME set to "mip6ha.ipv6.example.com"." The service name specified in RFC 5026 is "mip6" (not "mip6ha"); and the QNAME is missing two underscores. 2) Section 2.3.2.2, "All entries MUST point to the mobile node's IPv4 care-of address included in the binding update message." Since this section is about the private addresses case, it's not the address inside the binding update message, but rather the outer tunnel address that gets used, right? 3) Section 2.3.2.2, "The mobile node needs to maintain the NAT bindings for its current IPv4 care-of address. This is done through sending the binding update regularly to the home agent." 4) Section 4.1 describes the UDP encapsulation formats as : IP (v4 or v6) UDP IP (v4 or v6) Other headers Later, the text says that "UDP encapsulation MUST NOT be used when the mobile node is located in an IPv6-enabled link". Thus, shouldn't the first line be simply "IP (v4)"? 5) Section 4.2, "The source address of the IPv6 packet is the mobile node's IPv6 home address." and later "When the home agent receives the encapsulated binding update it compares the IPv4 address of the source address field in the IPv4 header with the IPv4 address in the source address of the IPv6 header." There two sentences seem to contradict each other. 6) Section 4.2, the BAck packet is missing ESP. 7) Section 4.3, "It should be noted that a mobile node that does not need to be reachable (i.e. only cares about the session continuity aspect of Mobile IP) does not need to refresh NAT binding. In this case, the mobile node would only be able to initiate communication with other nodes." Yes and no: if the MN doesn't refresh the NAT bindings at all, it won't be able to just initiate communications either (since when it attempts to initiate communications, the NAT will probably allocate a different port, and the HA state will be wrong). So even if MN does not refresh NAT bindings _all the time_, it has to do so when it wants to initiate communications (after a long period of being idle). (This might be slightly tricky to implement correctly, BTW.) 8) Section 4.4.1 and 4.5.1: the packet formats figures should show=20 "[UDP header [TLV-header]]" instead of just "[UDP header]". 9) Section 5, "it has the same UNSAF vulnerabilities associated with RFC 3519"; it would be more accurate to say "the same NAT-related security vulnerabilities as RFC 3519", as neither this nor RFC 3519 is an "Unilateral Self-Address Fixing" (UNSAF) mechanism. 10) There's no IANA considerations text for TLV-header "Type" field, just statement that "other values may be assigned in future". By whom, and subject to what requirements? 11) There's no IANA considerations text for IPv4 address acknowledgement option "Status" field. Since it's clearly intended that other values may be assigned in the future, this document should state by whom, and subject to what requirements. 12) RFC 3519 is mentioned, but not listed in references. 13) From idnits: No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming=20 Proposed Standard The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate,=20 even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.=20 Line 1226 has weird spacing: '...ulation for o...' Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that is what you mean). Missing Reference: 'DNAv4' is mentioned on line 1010, but not defined Outdated reference: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split has been published as RFC 5026 Unused Reference: 'IPv6' is defined on line 1291, but no explicit reference was found in the text Unused Reference: 'KEYWORDS' is defined on line 1301, but no explicit reference was found in the text Unused Reference: 'SEC' is defined on line 1304, but no explicit reference was found in the text Unused Reference: 'MIPv4' is defined on line 1330, but no explicit reference was found in the text ------- Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 11:45:12 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKG3a-0008EP-NB; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:45:02 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKG3Y-0008Ds-TL for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:45:00 -0500 Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKG3W-0001X3-IY for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:45:00 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.71])by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997D63529EB; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:44:56 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Benjamin Lim In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:44:58 +0100 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-15.0898 TC:1F TRN:61 TV:5.0.1023(15700.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2 Cc: 'Julien Laganier' , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Ben, El 30/01/2008, a las 4:10, Benjamin Lim escribi=F3: > Hi Julien, > > Replies inline. > > =3D8=3D=3D8<=3D8=3D=3D >> But MIPv6 trust model presuppose that the MN can trusted by >> the HA, and thus they have a SA. Thus I don't see how we can >> stop any such problems without changing the MIPv6 trust >> model, which doesn't look realistic. > [Ben] MIPv6 assumes that MN and HA have a trust relationship, hence =20= > HA does > not need to check the CoA that MN binds. Furthermore, a single MIPv6 =20= > session > only allows MN to bind a single CoA to its HoA at HA, hence further =20= > implying > that HA need not check CoA. However in MCoA, MN can now bind many =20 > CoAs at > HA. Can we assume the same trust level that the HA gives in MIPv6 =20 > applies to > MCoA? The original trust model of MIPv6 holds in MIPv6 operation due =20= > to the > specific conditions (e.g. only binding 1 CoA). However, if we change =20= > the > condition, we might need use other mechanisms to enhance the =20 > original trust > model to ensure that it holds. This is what I call adaptability =20 > (which what > most mammals are good at..;p) > I fail to see why the usage of multiple CoAs change the trust model =20 for MIP w.r.t. to its relationship between MN and HA? could you expand =20= on that? >> >>> Also, the attacker need not be the user of the mobile node. One >>> example is the bot-net scenario where the attacker controls >> unwilling >>> legit mobile nodes to perform such attack. The HA can trace back to >>> these unwilling mobile nodes and take action (e.g. deny these >>> unwilling mobile nodes service). Yes, by denying the >> attacker of its >>> tools, you can prevent the attack from escalating further. However, >>> shutting down your own network to prevent such action is tad bit >>> costly to the operator no? Maybe this was the intention of >> the attacker in the first place. >> >> This point seems moot. If the goal of the attacker is to deny >> service to "unwilling legit mobile nodes" that it is in >> control of, then it doesn't need any of that re-direction >> stuff: Since it controls them it can simply deny them >> service. Or am I missing something? > [Ben] The intention use previously was meant to say the goal of the =20= > attacker > is to make it a hassle for the operator in providing service to its > subscribers. If one MCoA MN is denied of service, the attacker can =20 > just > 'capture' another MCoA MN to do its dirty work Since the operator is > tracing, it is likely that the operator can figure out the root of =20 > the issue > (e.g. the use of MCoA) base on the trend of the attack. Hence, the =20 > operator > might limited the usage of MCoA until it finds the 'mastermind' =20 > behind all > of this attack. I apologize the misuse of words in my last example =20 > ('shut > down' might be too harsh). > > All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the =20= > effect > of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. > We agree that tracing capabilities does not prevent that attack. The =20 point being discussed afaict is whether we think this tracing =20 capability is enough deterrent to make this attack not attractive to =20 be persued by an attacker. I mean, that is basically the case of security cameras that are =20 recording (i mean those that do not have a person looking at them all =20= the time). They do not prevent you from attacking but you know they =20 will catch you later if you do something this seems to be enough deterrent for many attackers, i guess. =20 Wouldn't this be the case too? Regards, marcelo > Regards, > Benjamin Lim > >> >>> Hence, base on the above points, wouldn=92t it be better if the home >>> agent can prevent such problem from happening in the first place? >> >> See my comments on your two points above. >> >> Best, >> >> --julien > > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 11:46:09 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKG4e-0000aG-ER; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:46:08 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKG4c-0000X0-Jd for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:46:06 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKG4a-0001Yt-Rj for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:46:06 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.71])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003F22C52DB;Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:46:03 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <4C47BAA9-BA58-45F7-BDCF-2C050118BACE@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) In-Reply-To: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:46:05 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-18.5355 TC:1F TRN:30 TV:5.0.1023(15700.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Pascal, The question at this point is the following one: do you think that =20 this threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself? comments? Regards, marcelo El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: > I agree with Wassim on both mails. > > There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the > visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a =20 > network > is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP is =20 > also > exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. > > There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were a 3-=20= > way > or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have proposed > such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered 2nd BU > flow to verify the CoA in the first one: > = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-07# > section-6 > > > Pascal > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] >> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 >> To: Benjamin Lim >> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >> >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: >> >>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the >>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. >> >> =3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Wassim H. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 12:19:18 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGaf-0006ES-MJ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:19:13 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGae-0006EK-07 for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:19:12 -0500 Received: from neon.tcs.hut.fi ([130.233.215.20] helo=mail.tcs.hut.fi) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKGac-00034P-6y for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:19:11 -0500 Received: from rhea.tcs.hut.fi (rhea.tcs.hut.fi [130.233.215.147]) by mail.tcs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18BB52C020DE7; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:19:07 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:19:07 +0200 (EET) From: Wassim Haddad To: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA In-Reply-To: <4C47BAA9-BA58-45F7-BDCF-2C050118BACE@it.uc3m.es> Message-ID: References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <4C47BAA9-BA58-45F7-BDCF-2C050118BACE@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-377318441-1096311576-1201713547=:30941" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---377318441-1096311576-1201713547=:30941 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Hi Marcelo, IMHO, this topic has to be included as a new item in the new charter and should not be limited to MCoA. Regards, Wassim H. On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Pascal, > > The question at this point is the following one: do you think that this= =20 > threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself? > > comments? > > Regards, marcelo > > > El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: > >> I agree with Wassim on both mails. >>=20 >> There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the >> visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a network >> is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP is also >> exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. >>=20 >> There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were a 3-way >> or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have proposed >> such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered 2nd BU >> flow to verify the CoA in the first one: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-07# >> section-6 >>=20 >>=20 >> Pascal >>=20 >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] >>> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 >>> To: Benjamin Lim >>> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >>>=20 >>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: >>>=20 >>>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the >>>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. >>>=20 >>> =3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>>=20 >>> Wassim H. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > ---377318441-1096311576-1201713547=:30941 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext ---377318441-1096311576-1201713547=:30941-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 12:46:40 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKH17-0007O9-H3; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:46:33 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKH16-0007O3-K9 for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:46:32 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.132]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKH14-0003i7-Qv for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:46:32 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (unknown [163.117.139.71])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47CB42EBAC3; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:46:29 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Wassim Haddad In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:46:30 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco .com> <4C47BAA9-BA58-45F7-BDCF-2C050118BACE@it.uc3m.es> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-20.1960 TC:1F TRN:43 TV:5.0.1023(15700.000) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Fair enough. I think George has made a very nice suggestion w.r.t. this in a =20 previous email I think that it may be interesting to write first a draft about =20 residual threats on MIP from a general perspective, not limited to =20 this one and then move to the potential solutions I think that it would be good to write tis first draft in order to =20 understand the potantail impact of those threats and figure out which =20= ones need to be addressed. comments? volunteers? Regards, marcelo El 30/01/2008, a las 18:19, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: > Hi Marcelo, > > IMHO, this topic has to be included as a new item in the new charter =20= > and > should not be limited to MCoA. > > > Regards, > > Wassim H. > > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > >> Pascal, >> >> The question at this point is the following one: do you think that =20= >> this threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself? >> >> comments? >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >> El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: >> >>> I agree with Wassim on both mails. >>> There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the >>> visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a =20 >>> network >>> is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP is =20= >>> also >>> exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. >>> There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were a =20= >>> 3-way >>> or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have =20 >>> proposed >>> such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered =20 >>> 2nd BU >>> flow to verify the CoA in the first one: >>> = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-07# >>> section-6 >>> Pascal >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] >>>> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 >>>> To: Benjamin Lim >>>> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org >>>> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: >>>>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits =20= >>>>> the >>>>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not preventing =20= >>>>> it. >>>> =3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. >>>> Regards, >>>> Wassim H. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 13:16:42 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKHUF-0007JC-Gl; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:16:39 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKHUE-0007Id-3i for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:16:38 -0500 Received: from neon.tcs.hut.fi ([130.233.215.20] helo=mail.tcs.hut.fi) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKHUD-0002SC-B2 for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:16:37 -0500 Received: from rhea.tcs.hut.fi (rhea.tcs.hut.fi [130.233.215.147]) by mail.tcs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74512C0211A3; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:16:35 +0200 (EET) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:16:35 +0200 (EET) From: Wassim Haddad To: marcelo bagnulo braun Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco .com> <4C47BAA9-BA58-45F7-BDCF-2C050118BACE@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-377318441-1966025797-1201716995=:30941" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7fa173a723009a6ca8ce575a65a5d813 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---377318441-1966025797-1201716995=:30941 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > I think George has made a very nice suggestion w.r.t. this in a previous= =20 > email =3D> I agree. > I think that it may be interesting to write first a draft about residual= =20 > threats on MIP from a general perspective, not limited to this one and th= en=20 > move to the potential solutions > > I think that it would be good to write tis first draft in order to unders= tand=20 > the potantail impact of those threats and figure out which ones need to b= e=20 > addressed. > > comments? volunteers? =3D> As there is a clear interest in the redirection attack on the HA side,= =20 I volunteer to do some work on this one. Regards, Wassim H. > El 30/01/2008, a las 18:19, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: > >> Hi Marcelo, >>=20 >> IMHO, this topic has to be included as a new item in the new charter and >> should not be limited to MCoA. >>=20 >>=20 >> Regards, >>=20 >> Wassim H. >>=20 >>=20 >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >>=20 >>> Pascal, >>>=20 >>> The question at this point is the following one: do you think that this= =20 >>> threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself? >>>=20 >>> comments? >>>=20 >>> Regards, marcelo >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: >>>=20 >>>> I agree with Wassim on both mails. >>>> There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the >>>> visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a networ= k >>>> is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP is als= o >>>> exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. >>>> There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were a 3-wa= y >>>> or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have proposed >>>> such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered 2nd BU >>>> flow to verify the CoA in the first one: >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-0= 7# >>>> section-6 >>>> Pascal >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] >>>>> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 >>>>> To: Benjamin Lim >>>>> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: >>>>>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the >>>>>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. >>>>> =3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Wassim H. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> MEXT mailing list >>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> MEXT mailing list >> MEXT@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > ---377318441-1966025797-1201716995=:30941 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext ---377318441-1966025797-1201716995=:30941-- From enoizeri1972@alchemygarden.com Wed Jan 30 14:28:32 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKIbo-0001nw-1B for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:28:32 -0500 Received: from dsl-pppoe-pool15-94.d02.ncshlt.infoave.net ([207.144.47.94]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKIbn-0005kb-41 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:28:31 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01c86376$49cd4820$5e2f90cf@dennis7bujy6ks> From: "Sanne Federico" To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Don't let your love life suffer because your weener is tiny - you can put on inches with this quick and simple solution Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:28:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C8634C.60F74020" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 ----------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C8634C.60F74020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't let your love life suffer because your weener is tiny - you can = put on inches with this quick and simple solution ----------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C8634C.60F74020 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't let your love life suffer = because your=20 weener is tiny - you can put on inches with this quick and simple=20 solution ----------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C8634C.60F74020-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 18:36:07 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKMTB-0006kx-PN; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:35:53 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKMT9-0006ki-C8; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:35:51 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKMT8-0005TM-0R; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:35:51 -0500 Received: from totoro.qualcomm.com (totoro.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.158]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m0UNZjbj003210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:35:45 -0800 Received: from SANEXCAS03.na.qualcomm.com (sanexcas03.qualcomm.com [172.30.32.65]) by totoro.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m0UNZi7p005948; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:35:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAEX12.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.246]) by SANEXCAS03.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:35:44 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:35:41 -0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <47924D28.4020903@gmx.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt Thread-Index: Acha0DBmPBZiJjfRQwy2eXXKm2ojwQIyFmbA From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" To: "Hannes Tschofenig" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2008 23:35:44.0824 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5810380:01C86398] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a1f9797ba297220533cb8c3f4bc709a8 Cc: dime@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hannes,=20 The changes you proposed are fine. I saw that you sent an email to DIME to request comments on the ciphering aspects. That is fine with me; let's see if there is any opinion there.=20 However let's remember that requirements should influence the solution and not the other way around :-) Ciao Gerardo > -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:19 AM > To: Giaretta, Gerardo > Cc: dime@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt >=20 > Hi Gerardo, >=20 > thanks for your quick response. Please find my comments inline: >=20 > ~snip~ > >> > >> > >>>> G2.11 The AAAH server MUST be able to indicate to the HA > >>>> > > whether > > > >>> the > >>> > >>> > >>>> bearer traffic for the MN needs to receive IPsec ESP > >>>> > > protection. > > > >>>> I don't understand this either. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> The AAA may indicate if the MIPv6 tunnel should be an IP-in-IP > >>> > > tunnel or > > > >>> an ESP tunnel. > >>> > >>> > >> Hmmm. I might have missed something but Mobile IP establishes IP-in-IP > >> (or GRE tunnels) and not ESP tunnels. > >> > >> > > > > The HA and MN may configure a child SA to protect payload traffic. In > > this way the packets from HA to MN are protected using ESP. > > > > >=20 > This is a somewhat new requirement for me and we have not addressed this > aspect in our DIME documents. >=20 > The additional issue with this requirement is that one needs to have a > way to run an authorization exchange between the HA and the AAAS after > the authentication. > At the moment the authorization exchange and the authentication exchange > happen at the same time. >=20 > I will post a separate mail to the DIME list to see what implication > this has with respect to the protocol design. >=20 >=20 > >>>> G2.12 The HA MUST be able to authenticate the MN through the > >>>> > > AAAH > > > >>> in > >>> > >>> > >>>> case a pre-share key is used in IKEv2 for user > >>>> > > authentication. > > > >>>> The exact procedure is part of the solution space. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Why do you list this requirement? I believe it is pretty much > >>>> > > useless > > > >>>> given > >>>> that it is a consequence of the solution. I suggest to delete this > >>>> requirement. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> I agree it is a consequence of the solution. However, I think it is > >>> > > good > > > >>> to make it clear here as RFC 5026 provides text for PSK, EAP and > >>> certificates. I don't think it is bad to have it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Then, I would write make it more explicitly. Just say that RFC 5026 > >> supports different > >> authentication mechanisms (PSK, EAP and certificates) and the solution > >> specification MUST > >> specify all variants. > >> > >> > > > > This was suggested by Vijay. The point is that the HA may be able to > > fetch the PSK from the AAAH in case it does not have it. It's not only > > supporting PSK within IKEv2, rather contacting the AAAH to verify the > > PSK. > > > > > The way how IKEv2 works would not allow PSK based authentication to be > relayed to the AAA server. It does not work with legacy PSK credentials. > Hence, the only reasonable way is to request the PSK from the AAAH. >=20 > But this is fine with me. I don't see a contradiction between the > requirements text I wrote and the one envisioned by Vijay. >=20 > ~snip~ >=20 > >>>> The same > >>>> is true for requirement G4.7, which says: > >>>> > >>>> G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is > >>>> > > not > > > >>>> included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message > >>>> > > Authentication > > > >>>> Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is > >>>> > > successful, > > > >>>> the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the > >>>> > > HA > > > >>> if > >>> > >>> > >>>> the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH > >>>> > > MUST > > > >>>> send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA > >>>> > > if > > > >>>> the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> This paragraph sounds really complex. The first sentence is pretty > >>>> > >>>> > >>> much > >>> > >>> > >>>> irrelevant for such a requirements document. Isn't the 2nd sentence > >>>> covered > >>>> by requirement in G4.3 already? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> I agree we can remove the first sentence. The second sentence is > >>> different form G4.3, though: G4.3 is about the HA to request the > >>> > > keying > > > >>> material while G4.7 is about the AAAH sending it. Would you prefer > >>> > > merge > > > >>> the two goals? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> I would combine it since it is a requirement for requesting a keying > >> material would (in my opinion) > >> also imply that you have a way to receive it. > >> > >> > > > > Can you please propose some text? I still don't fully understand the > > implications of the proposal. > > > > > Here is G4.7 >=20 > G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is not > included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication > Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is successful, > the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the HA if > the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH MUST > send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA if > the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. >=20 >=20 > Here is G4.3: >=20 > G4.3 The HA SHOULD be able to request either the keying material to > generate MN-HA key for MN-HA Mobility Message Authentication > Option or SHOULD be able to request the MN-HA key and the related > SPI values from the AAAH server. >=20 >=20 > The new requirement as a replacement of the above 2: >=20 > The AAAH MUST be able to provide a MN-HA key (or data used for > subsequent key derivation of the > MN-HA key by the HA) to the HA if requested. > Additional data, such as the SPI or lifetime parameters, are sent along > with the keying material. >=20 > ~snip~ >=20 > Ciao > Hannes _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 21:29:40 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKPB7-00062I-Sr; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:29:25 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKPB5-0005dc-Ar for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:29:23 -0500 Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKPB0-0001ya-PP for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:29:19 -0500 Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com ([157.8.1.145]) by smtp.mei.co.jp (8.12.11.20060614/3.7W/kc-maile12) with ESMTP id m0V2TBHG024551; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:29:11 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlb2) with ESMTP id m0V2TCR01703; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:29:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/kc-maili06) with ESMTP id m0V2TAV29438; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:29:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from NW-Sephiroth ([10.81.113.116]) by pslexc01.psl.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:28:16 +0800 Received: from NWSephiroth by NW-Sephiroth (PGP Universal service); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:28:13 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by NW-Sephiroth on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:28:13 +0800 From: "Benjamin Lim" To: "'marcelo bagnulo braun'" Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:28:13 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 thread-index: AchjX2GROSZDdLYJR1Ob16wSszjifAATr1qQ Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2008 02:28:16.0502 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF95B960:01C863B0] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3a4bc66230659131057bb68ed51598f8 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Marcelo,=20 Replies inline. =3D8=3D=3D8<=3D8=3D=3D > I fail to see why the usage of multiple CoAs change the trust=20 > model for MIP w.r.t. to its relationship between MN and HA?=20 > could you expand on that? [Ben] This point has been explained on the mailing list (old and new) = for a few times. I snip a summarize version of it here. More details can be = found in draft (section 2)=20 http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mext/draft-lim-mext-multiple-coa-verify-00.txt =3D8=3D=3D8<=3D8=3D=3D [Ben] RFC3775 assumes trust for home registration. More than likely, the = CoA is specified in the source address field of the packet hence ingress filtering can be assumed to be performed. Even if AltCoA option used, in RFC3775, at most MN can only specify one AltCoA binding. But in bulk registration, MN can specify more than one CoA to be bound at HA. Furthermore, only one of these CoAs is specified in the source address = field of the BU. The rest are specified in the BU itself. Hence, this = increases the risk of not knowing if they are actually valid routing address to MN that HA has to take when binding these CoAs. =3D8=3D=3D8<=3D8=3D=3D Regards, Benjamin Lim >=20 >=20 > >> > >>> Also, the attacker need not be the user of the mobile node. One=20 > >>> example is the bot-net scenario where the attacker controls > >> unwilling > >>> legit mobile nodes to perform such attack. The HA can=20 > trace back to=20 > >>> these unwilling mobile nodes and take action (e.g. deny these=20 > >>> unwilling mobile nodes service). Yes, by denying the > >> attacker of its > >>> tools, you can prevent the attack from escalating=20 > further. However,=20 > >>> shutting down your own network to prevent such action is tad bit=20 > >>> costly to the operator no? Maybe this was the intention of > >> the attacker in the first place. > >> > >> This point seems moot. If the goal of the attacker is to=20 > deny service=20 > >> to "unwilling legit mobile nodes" that it is in control=20 > of, then it=20 > >> doesn't need any of that re-direction > >> stuff: Since it controls them it can simply deny them=20 > service. Or am=20 > >> I missing something? > > [Ben] The intention use previously was meant to say the goal of the=20 > > attacker is to make it a hassle for the operator in=20 > providing service=20 > > to its subscribers. If one MCoA MN is denied of service,=20 > the attacker=20 > > can just 'capture' another MCoA MN to do its dirty work Since the=20 > > operator is tracing, it is likely that the operator can=20 > figure out the=20 > > root of the issue (e.g. the use of MCoA) base on the trend of the=20 > > attack. Hence, the operator might limited the usage of MCoA=20 > until it=20 > > finds the 'mastermind' > > behind all > > of this attack. I apologize the misuse of words in my last example=20 > > ('shut down' might be too harsh). > > > > All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the=20 > > effect of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. > > >=20 > We agree that tracing capabilities does not prevent that=20 > attack. The point being discussed afaict is whether we think=20 > this tracing capability is enough deterrent to make this=20 > attack not attractive to be persued by an attacker. >=20 > I mean, that is basically the case of security cameras that=20 > are recording (i mean those that do not have a person looking=20 > at them all the time). They do not prevent you from attacking=20 > but you know they will catch you later if you do something >=20 > this seems to be enough deterrent for many attackers, i guess. =20 > Wouldn't this be the case too? >=20 > Regards, marcelo >=20 >=20 > > Regards, > > Benjamin Lim > > > >> > >>> Hence, base on the above points, wouldn=92t it be better if=20 > the home=20 > >>> agent can prevent such problem from happening in the first place? > >> > >> See my comments on your two points above. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> --julien > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 21:33:23 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKPEw-00047G-47; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:33:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKPEt-000441-TC for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:33:19 -0500 Received: from smtp.mei.co.jp ([133.183.100.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKPEr-0000rk-Kr for mext@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:33:19 -0500 Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com ([157.8.1.145]) by smtp.mei.co.jp (8.12.11.20060614/3.7W/kc-maile13) with ESMTP id m0V2XF87027931; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:33:15 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlb3) with ESMTP id m0V2XFO01652; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:33:15 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/kc-maili07) with ESMTP id m0V2XGp17488; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:33:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from NW-Sephiroth ([10.81.113.116]) by pslexc01.psl.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:32:19 +0800 Received: from NWSephiroth by NW-Sephiroth (PGP Universal service); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:32:17 +0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by NW-Sephiroth on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:32:17 +0800 From: "Benjamin Lim" To: "'marcelo bagnulo braun'" Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:32:16 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 thread-index: AchjbCzXpvJhaOSsQJmie9olXqF3/AARMsbg Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2008 02:32:19.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[80B3FE20:01C863B1] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 37af5f8fbf6f013c5b771388e24b09e7 Cc: mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi,=20 =3D8=3D=3D8<=3D8=3D=3D > > I think George has made a very nice suggestion w.r.t. this in a=20 > > previous email >=20 > =3D> I agree. [Ben] +1 >=20 > > I think that it may be interesting to write first a draft about=20 > > residual threats on MIP from a general perspective, not limited to=20 > > this one and then move to the potential solutions > > > > I think that it would be good to write tis first draft in order to=20 > > understand the potantail impact of those threats and figure=20 > out which=20 > > ones need to be addressed. > > > > comments? volunteers? >=20 > =3D> As there is a clear interest in the redirection attack on=20 > the HA side, I volunteer to do some work on this one. [Ben] Since my draft already talks about one issue on the multiple CoA scenario. I can contribute in that area. Will have an offline chat with Wassim. Regards, Benjamin Lim =20 >=20 >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Wassim H. >=20 >=20 > > El 30/01/2008, a las 18:19, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: > > > >> Hi Marcelo, > >>=20 > >> IMHO, this topic has to be included as a new item in the=20 > new charter and > >> should not be limited to MCoA. > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> Regards, > >>=20 > >> Wassim H. > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > >>=20 > >>> Pascal, > >>>=20 > >>> The question at this point is the following one: do you=20 > think that this=20 > >>> threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself? > >>>=20 > >>> comments? > >>>=20 > >>> Regards, marcelo > >>>=20 > >>>=20 > >>> El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: > >>>=20 > >>>> I agree with Wassim on both mails. > >>>> There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the > >>>> visited network into believing that the CoA (or its=20 > prefix if a network > >>>> is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited=20 > link. DSMIP is also > >>>> exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. > >>>> There are many scenarios that do not involve high=20 > mobility were a 3-way > >>>> or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We=20 > have proposed > >>>> such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a=20 > triggered 2nd BU > >>>> flow to verify the CoA in the first one: > >>>>=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing- > header-07# > >>>> section-6 > >>>> Pascal > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] > >>>>> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 > >>>>> To: Benjamin Lim > >>>>> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org > >>>>> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA > >>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: > >>>>>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing=20 > only limits the > >>>>>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not=20 > preventing it. > >>>>> =3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Wassim H. > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> MEXT mailing list > >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> MEXT mailing list > >>>> MEXT@ietf.org > >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >>>=20 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> MEXT mailing list > >> MEXT@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From EdwardodrunkGay@americantorture.com Thu Jan 31 02:06:13 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKTUy-0000nX-8q; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:06:12 -0500 Received: from host248-49-dynamic.15-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.15.49.248] helo=pavilion3010.homenet.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKTUx-0007Sm-EM; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:06:11 -0500 Received: from bled by americantorture.com with SMTP id t7QUG0zsvx for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:03:11 -0100 From: "Jacques Roach" To: Subject: it's only fun and winning. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Free money free fun. Travel no further than your screen and get your free $2400 When YOU WIN, we win! We know how to treat our players - how about a $2400 welcome bonmus when you join? http://docthis.cn/ From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 31 02:45:06 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKU6R-0008TT-Nm; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:44:55 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKU6Q-0008TI-OP for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:44:54 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKU6P-0008Dy-Mo for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:44:54 -0500 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2008 07:44:51 -0000 Received: from proxy3-nsn.nsn-inter.net (EHLO [217.115.75.231]) [217.115.75.231] by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 31 Jan 2008 08:44:51 +0100 X-Authenticated: #29516787 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+87/J5Lpm8JyIOdhnJRMRueHsCxkNVeFCFdRQEuk 0ZizoFAX/UeSGr Message-ID: <47A17C75.80405@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:44:53 +0200 From: Hannes Tschofenig User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Giaretta, Gerardo" Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79bb66f827e54e9d5c5c7f1f9d645608 Cc: dime@ietf.org, mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Gerardo Giaretta, Gerardo wrote: > Hannes, > > The changes you proposed are fine. I saw that you sent an email to DIME > to request comments on the ciphering aspects. That is fine with me; > let's see if there is any opinion there. > So far, no response. > However let's remember that requirements should influence the solution > and not the other way around :-) > > That's correct. I just wanted to make the group aware of a requirement that I haven't seen before. Ciao Hannes > Ciao > Gerardo > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] >> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:19 AM >> To: Giaretta, Gerardo >> Cc: dime@ietf.org; mext@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [MEXT] WGLC for draft-ietf-mext-aaa-ha-goals-00.txt >> >> Hi Gerardo, >> >> thanks for your quick response. Please find my comments inline: >> >> ~snip~ >> >>>> >>>>>> G2.11 The AAAH server MUST be able to indicate to the HA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> whether >>> >>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> bearer traffic for the MN needs to receive IPsec ESP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> protection. >>> >>> >>>>>> I don't understand this either. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The AAA may indicate if the MIPv6 tunnel should be an IP-in-IP >>>>> >>>>> >>> tunnel or >>> >>> >>>>> an ESP tunnel. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Hmmm. I might have missed something but Mobile IP establishes >>>> > IP-in-IP > >>>> (or GRE tunnels) and not ESP tunnels. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The HA and MN may configure a child SA to protect payload traffic. >>> > In > >>> this way the packets from HA to MN are protected using ESP. >>> >>> >>> >> This is a somewhat new requirement for me and we have not addressed >> > this > >> aspect in our DIME documents. >> >> The additional issue with this requirement is that one needs to have a >> way to run an authorization exchange between the HA and the AAAS after >> the authentication. >> At the moment the authorization exchange and the authentication >> > exchange > >> happen at the same time. >> >> I will post a separate mail to the DIME list to see what implication >> this has with respect to the protocol design. >> >> >> >>>>>> G2.12 The HA MUST be able to authenticate the MN through the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> AAAH >>> >>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> case a pre-share key is used in IKEv2 for user >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> authentication. >>> >>> >>>>>> The exact procedure is part of the solution space. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you list this requirement? I believe it is pretty much >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> useless >>> >>> >>>>>> given >>>>>> that it is a consequence of the solution. I suggest to delete >>>>>> > this > >>>>>> requirement. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I agree it is a consequence of the solution. However, I think it >>>>> > is > >>> good >>> >>> >>>>> to make it clear here as RFC 5026 provides text for PSK, EAP and >>>>> certificates. I don't think it is bad to have it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Then, I would write make it more explicitly. Just say that RFC 5026 >>>> supports different >>>> authentication mechanisms (PSK, EAP and certificates) and the >>>> > solution > >>>> specification MUST >>>> specify all variants. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> This was suggested by Vijay. The point is that the HA may be able to >>> fetch the PSK from the AAAH in case it does not have it. It's not >>> > only > >>> supporting PSK within IKEv2, rather contacting the AAAH to verify >>> > the > >>> PSK. >>> >>> >>> >> The way how IKEv2 works would not allow PSK based authentication to be >> relayed to the AAA server. It does not work with legacy PSK >> > credentials. > >> Hence, the only reasonable way is to request the PSK from the AAAH. >> >> But this is fine with me. I don't see a contradiction between the >> requirements text I wrote and the one envisioned by Vijay. >> >> ~snip~ >> >> >>>>>> The same >>>>>> is true for requirement G4.7, which says: >>>>>> >>>>>> G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> not >>> >>> >>>>>> included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> Authentication >>> >>> >>>>>> Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> successful, >>> >>> >>>>>> the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> HA >>> >>> >>>>> if >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> MUST >>> >>> >>>>>> send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the >>>>>> > HA > >>> if >>> >>> >>>>>> the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This paragraph sounds really complex. The first sentence is >>>>>> > pretty > >>>>>> >>>>> much >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> irrelevant for such a requirements document. Isn't the 2nd >>>>>> > sentence > >>>>>> covered >>>>>> by requirement in G4.3 already? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I agree we can remove the first sentence. The second sentence is >>>>> different form G4.3, though: G4.3 is about the HA to request the >>>>> >>>>> >>> keying >>> >>> >>>>> material while G4.7 is about the AAAH sending it. Would you prefer >>>>> >>>>> >>> merge >>> >>> >>>>> the two goals? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would combine it since it is a requirement for requesting a >>>> > keying > >>>> material would (in my opinion) >>>> also imply that you have a way to receive it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Can you please propose some text? I still don't fully understand the >>> implications of the proposal. >>> >>> >>> >> Here is G4.7 >> >> G4.7 If the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication Option is not >> included by the HA or the MN-AAA Mobility Message Authentication >> Option is included and the MN-AAA authentication is successful, >> the AAAH MUST send the keying material for MN-HA key to the HA >> > if > >> the HA requested for MN-HA keying material only. The AAAH MUST >> send the MN-HA key and the corresponding SPI value to the HA if >> the HA requested for MN-HA key and SPI. >> >> >> Here is G4.3: >> >> G4.3 The HA SHOULD be able to request either the keying material >> > to > >> generate MN-HA key for MN-HA Mobility Message Authentication >> Option or SHOULD be able to request the MN-HA key and the >> > related > >> SPI values from the AAAH server. >> >> >> The new requirement as a replacement of the above 2: >> >> The AAAH MUST be able to provide a MN-HA key (or data used for >> subsequent key derivation of the >> MN-HA key by the HA) to the HA if requested. >> Additional data, such as the SPI or lifetime parameters, are sent >> > along > >> with the keying material. >> >> ~snip~ >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From Ildiko-zabawsk@acfmetropole.com.br Thu Jan 31 03:12:50 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKUXS-0002ZP-RW for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:12:50 -0500 Received: from [88.236.31.157] (helo=[88.236.31.157]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKUXR-0000El-SC for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:12:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c863e1$4be57720$9d1fec58@pc7> From: "Ildiko DEGERNESS" To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: My new c0ck is so long and thick that when she sucks it she always gags But she loves it anyway Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:14:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C863F2.0F6BFD30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C863F2.0F6BFD30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Love her the right way : by adding inches to your manhood where it = matters ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C863F2.0F6BFD30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Love her the right way : by adding = inches to=20 your manhood where it matters ----------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C863F2.0F6BFD30-- From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 31 05:13:38 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKWQ5-0003Pb-Jw; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:13:21 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKWQ4-0003PW-Ix for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:13:20 -0500 Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es ([163.117.176.133]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKWQ3-00036r-Mt for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:13:20 -0500 Received: from chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es (unknown [163.117.139.71])(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))(No client certificate requested)by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33DB82C6002; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:13:18 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: marcelo bagnulo braun To: Wassim Haddad In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:13:19 +0100 References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco .com> <4C47BAA9-BA58-45F7-BDCF-2C050118BACE@it.uc3m.es> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) X-imss-version: 2.049 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:B L:E SM:2 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:1 TS:-24.1700 TC:1F TRN:40 TV:5.0.1023(15700.003) X-imss-scores: Clean:100.00000 C:0 M:0 S:0 R:0 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org El 30/01/2008, a las 19:16, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: > > =3D> As there is a clear interest in the redirection attack on the HA =20= > side, I volunteer to do some work on this one. > I think the work should be general to all residual threats on MIP as =20 George mentioned, i think this would be more interesting since it =20 would allow us to put the different threats in perspective and figure =20= out which ones we should address. > > Regards, > > Wassim H. > > >> El 30/01/2008, a las 18:19, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: >> >>> Hi Marcelo, >>> IMHO, this topic has to be included as a new item in the new =20 >>> charter and >>> should not be limited to MCoA. >>> Regards, >>> Wassim H. >>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >>>> Pascal, >>>> The question at this point is the following one: do you think =20 >>>> that this threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself? >>>> comments? >>>> Regards, marcelo >>>> El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: >>>>> I agree with Wassim on both mails. >>>>> There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the >>>>> visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a =20= >>>>> network >>>>> is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP =20= >>>>> is also >>>>> exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. >>>>> There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were =20= >>>>> a 3-way >>>>> or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have =20 >>>>> proposed >>>>> such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered =20= >>>>> 2nd BU >>>>> flow to verify the CoA in the first one: >>>>> = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-07# >>>>> section-6 >>>>> Pascal >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] >>>>>> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 >>>>>> To: Benjamin Lim >>>>>> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: >>>>>>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only =20 >>>>>>> limits the >>>>>>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not =20 >>>>>>> preventing it. >>>>>> =3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Wassim H. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 31 06:00:04 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKX9B-0006DL-LK; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:59:57 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKX9A-0006DF-K2 for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:59:56 -0500 Received: from imr2.ericy.com ([198.24.6.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKX99-0008UH-0S for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:59:56 -0500 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0VAxrKa015896; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:59:53 -0600 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:59:52 -0600 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:59:51 -0500 Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA232B6D@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA Thread-Index: Achj8hXRU57a/6fYQEyySkg4KqICRQABfNEg References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <4C47BAA9-BA58-45F7-BDCF-2C050118BACE@it.uc3m.es> From: "Suresh Krishnan" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" , "Wassim Haddad" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2008 10:59:52.0813 (UTC) FILETIME=[680311D0:01C863F8] X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a87a9cdae4ac5d3fbeee75cd0026d632 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi Marcelo, I am willing to work on a generic MIPv6 threats document along with = the other interested people. Cheers Suresh=20 -----Original Message----- From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es]=20 Sent: January 31, 2008 11:13 AM To: Wassim Haddad Cc: Julien Laganier; mext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA El 30/01/2008, a las 19:16, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: > > =3D> As there is a clear interest in the redirection attack on the HA=20 > side, I volunteer to do some work on this one. > I think the work should be general to all residual threats on MIP as =20 George mentioned, i think this would be more interesting since it =20 would allow us to put the different threats in perspective and figure =20 out which ones we should address. > > Regards, > > Wassim H. > > >> El 30/01/2008, a las 18:19, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: >> >>> Hi Marcelo, >>> IMHO, this topic has to be included as a new item in the new =20 >>> charter and >>> should not be limited to MCoA. >>> Regards, >>> Wassim H. >>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >>>> Pascal, >>>> The question at this point is the following one: do you think =20 >>>> that this threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself? >>>> comments? >>>> Regards, marcelo >>>> El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: >>>>> I agree with Wassim on both mails. >>>>> There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the >>>>> visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a =20 >>>>> network >>>>> is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP =20 >>>>> is also >>>>> exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. >>>>> There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were =20 >>>>> a 3-way >>>>> or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have =20 >>>>> proposed >>>>> such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered =20 >>>>> 2nd BU >>>>> flow to verify the CoA in the first one: >>>>> = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-header-07# >>>>> section-6 >>>>> Pascal >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] >>>>>> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 >>>>>> To: Benjamin Lim >>>>>> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: >>>>>>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only =20 >>>>>>> limits the >>>>>>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not =20 >>>>>>> preventing it. >>>>>> =3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Wassim H. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> MEXT mailing list >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MEXT mailing list >>> MEXT@ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext >> > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 31 06:08:12 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKXH6-0005P8-Su; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:08:08 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKXH5-0005NI-O0 for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:08:07 -0500 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKXH3-0000Bl-JH for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:08:07 -0500 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x19so710311pyg.24 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:08:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Y0u1XV69Q3W+WzB9Z0yklpvrOVH5xqOgIeoQFtFDqm0=; b=lRmy38IQ2UGa6+bsia1KzNEUmaTGT+KiPeAP0Q9hYpKEvuikAPSjvn051O1cfbMLgH8lUrRtJOzggmlN8cAWfTR9XEdF62aTZSIMlmr2oiSKSVvePde164QUgypGLIb94tzO+kAz5RJXTOpzZ3A/6G4mhMa63xL87/sDIKuBHOU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Mtuq9pntYUHczlYJU9b/5ntMvhi8/5dJzx8b78ReMSCP8F8IkzZcjZigfxLBMuxhrT1DAj4wLfOQ6boErNKV0aoAT9xlCRVVOXqGJ0C1fL9nWTqaxvy4DkVclhJGBfl4QJ4A8nJIZ55+vkbXCk9VeCC0aOejlnm7wuu+dLLeNbI= Received: by 10.142.105.14 with SMTP id d14mr1003663wfc.67.1201777684651; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.165.1 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:08:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:08:04 +0000 From: "George Tsirtsis" To: "Suresh Krishnan" Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA232B6D@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC051C02A0@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <4C47BAA9-BA58-45F7-BDCF-2C050118BACE@it.uc3m.es> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA232B6D@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 67c1ea29f88502ef6a32ccec927970f0 Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org I am of course also interested in this work. I guess we already have enough people to get the ball rolling on this. Thanks George On Jan 31, 2008 10:59 AM, Suresh Krishnan wr= ote: > Hi Marcelo, > I am willing to work on a generic MIPv6 threats document along with the= other interested people. > > Cheers > Suresh > > -----Original Message----- > From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marcelo@it.uc3m.es] > Sent: January 31, 2008 11:13 AM > To: Wassim Haddad > Cc: Julien Laganier; mext@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA > > > El 30/01/2008, a las 19:16, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: > > > > =3D> As there is a clear interest in the redirection attack on the HA > > side, I volunteer to do some work on this one. > > > > I think the work should be general to all residual threats on MIP as > George mentioned, i think this would be more interesting since it > would allow us to put the different threats in perspective and figure > out which ones we should address. > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Wassim H. > > > > > >> El 30/01/2008, a las 18:19, Wassim Haddad escribi=F3: > >> > >>> Hi Marcelo, > >>> IMHO, this topic has to be included as a new item in the new > >>> charter and > >>> should not be limited to MCoA. > >>> Regards, > >>> Wassim H. > >>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > >>>> Pascal, > >>>> The question at this point is the following one: do you think > >>>> that this threat should be addressed in the MCoA draft itself? > >>>> comments? > >>>> Regards, marcelo > >>>> El 30/01/2008, a las 10:09, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) escribi=F3: > >>>>> I agree with Wassim on both mails. > >>>>> There's also the situation where the MN/MR might be fooled by the > >>>>> visited network into believing that the CoA (or its prefix if a > >>>>> network > >>>>> is attacked as opposed to a host) is on the visited link. DSMIP > >>>>> is also > >>>>> exposed, in particular with IPv4 CoAs. > >>>>> There are many scenarios that do not involve high mobility were > >>>>> a 3-way > >>>>> or a 4-way handshake could be used to verify the CoA. We have > >>>>> proposed > >>>>> such a test in section 6 of the RRH draft that uses a triggered > >>>>> 2nd BU > >>>>> flow to verify the CoA in the first one: > >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-nemo-reverse-routing-heade= r-07# > >>>>> section-6 > >>>>> Pascal > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:whaddad@tcs.hut.fi] > >>>>>> Sent: mercredi 30 janvier 2008 09:32 > >>>>>> To: Benjamin Lim > >>>>>> Cc: 'Julien Laganier'; mext@ietf.org > >>>>>> Subject: RE: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA > >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Benjamin Lim wrote: > >>>>>>> All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only > >>>>>>> limits the > >>>>>>> effect of the attack from escalating further and not > >>>>>>> preventing it. > >>>>>> =3D> which (again) also perfectly applies to a single CoA. > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Wassim H. > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> MEXT mailing list > >>>>>> MEXT@ietf.org > >>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> MEXT mailing list > >>>>> MEXT@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> MEXT mailing list > >>> MEXT@ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From EloiselessonDewitt@yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 07:51:30 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKYt8-0002Zh-2H; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:51:30 -0500 Received: from [200.44.61.151] (helo=ventas03.mshome.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKYt7-0000h2-Bl; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:51:29 -0500 Received: from snore by yahoo.com with SMTP id qlNiM18wQg for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:50:39 +0400 From: "Jana Lin" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKZi0-0006Ak-Mg; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:44:04 -0500 Received: from [59.16.57.203] (helo=samsung-kdlqtw3.kornet) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKZhz-0003Ah-FK; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:44:04 -0500 Received: from [59.16.57.203] by mail.acimi.com; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:54:52 +0900 Message-ID: <01c8645c$4a209fc0$cb39103b@akstcacimimnsdgs> From: "Fay Hadley" To: Subject: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:54:52 +0900 Generic Cialis, branded quality@ Freeway Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:54:52 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 PopularEDs& Ship Fast http://moreloh.com From _osseofib@adr98.com Thu Jan 31 09:04:41 2008 Return-path: <_osseofib@adr98.com> Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKa1x-0000Gc-Ly for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:04:41 -0500 Received: from host88-32-dynamic.15-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.15.32.88]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKa1x-0003mS-2A for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:04:41 -0500 Message-ID: <001201c86412$38d59710$58200f57@family3uhssm4l> From: "abid Gyarmathy" <_osseofib@adr98.com> To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Make her dreams come true, fulfil her greatest desires with your new big d1ck Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:04:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8641A.9A99FF10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8641A.9A99FF10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Want a brand new large P3Nis? It's easy, simply click HERE ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8641A.9A99FF10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Want a brand new large P3Nis? It's = easy,=20 simply click HERE ----------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8641A.9A99FF10-- From irenesterling@paratype.com Thu Jan 31 12:33:32 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKdI4-0002f1-LK for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:33:32 -0500 Received: from [76.206.21.78] (helo=76.206.21.78) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKdI4-0002Sa-1b for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:33:32 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c8642f$04a9e162$f6899bb6@pbyahdoq> From: "bary huzur" To: "Darren Elliot" Subject: exclusive watches, affordable prices rolex Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:46:09 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 The finest of luxury timepieces at the LOWEST prices!! http://lulusyap.com/ From mext-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jan 31 13:07:49 2008 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKdp4-0000zQ-EE; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:07:39 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKdp2-0000zK-Dx for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:07:36 -0500 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKdp1-0003jM-Lx for mext@ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:07:36 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so721463fgg.41 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:07:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=fGjj7z1rBKUJGwr6DkwBwRmeqXMZ4AHurvnK086lBg0=; b=I70/tLgRF2QezOwQibJCn1sINnwl7jkkEP64+xbKv/qXlfElu9ef5g//Glgh2HtYPh5NUdds4lNOyDUZtBLQlta9XbBUMhkRtfUt1VFwghVAq3zn35v4SoK9TQPkYf2CfZNI3BtWjH9ApPxM6D1IKhtmyomKaao08i7StFkaL8M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=eT2UvJqq+Vz1DaKGS4vIhcTHnkTeqPsWtgoEcCEe+yAN1I6jmhVBN1iJdU2jG16VByj0fYqNrfKKpEj9LwebzBjeCc+KseBWxSWFZrx9NqFFmA/j3zAtbGaj18SoX28u+cK3pG27Tj7vW4OoeD21nMTPlQzjYK/DFnH/5AblIUg= Received: by 10.86.52.1 with SMTP id z1mr2164275fgz.52.1201802854422; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:07:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.86.15 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:07:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <729b68be0801311007m3444a688je6d8dccf486d8574@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:07:34 +0100 From: "Jean-Michel Combes" To: "marcelo bagnulo braun" Subject: Re: [MEXT] re-direction attack on MCoA In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f49c97ce49302a02285a2d36a99eef8c Cc: Julien Laganier , mext@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mext@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mext-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I second Marcelo's opinion. This is exactly the trust model which is used today by ISP concerning P2P: no particular mechanism/protocol/architecture to block P2P flows used to exchange illegal copies but companies (i.e. music and movies majors) know IP addresses of people exchanging such type of files and ask ISP to give to the justice the names behind these addresses. In the MIPv6 case, the companies are also the ISP. Best regards. JMC. 2008/1/30, marcelo bagnulo braun : > Hi Ben, > > El 30/01/2008, a las 4:10, Benjamin Lim escribi=F3: > > > > Hi Julien, > > > > Replies inline. > > > > =3D8=3D=3D8<=3D8=3D=3D > >> But MIPv6 trust model presuppose that the MN can trusted by > >> the HA, and thus they have a SA. Thus I don't see how we can > >> stop any such problems without changing the MIPv6 trust > >> model, which doesn't look realistic. > > [Ben] MIPv6 assumes that MN and HA have a trust relationship, hence > > HA does > > not need to check the CoA that MN binds. Furthermore, a single MIPv6 > > session > > only allows MN to bind a single CoA to its HoA at HA, hence further > > implying > > that HA need not check CoA. However in MCoA, MN can now bind many > > CoAs at > > HA. Can we assume the same trust level that the HA gives in MIPv6 > > applies to > > MCoA? The original trust model of MIPv6 holds in MIPv6 operation due > > to the > > specific conditions (e.g. only binding 1 CoA). However, if we change > > the > > condition, we might need use other mechanisms to enhance the > > original trust > > model to ensure that it holds. This is what I call adaptability > > (which what > > most mammals are good at..;p) > > > > > I fail to see why the usage of multiple CoAs change the trust model > for MIP w.r.t. to its relationship between MN and HA? could you expand > on that? > > > > >> > >>> Also, the attacker need not be the user of the mobile node. One > >>> example is the bot-net scenario where the attacker controls > >> unwilling > >>> legit mobile nodes to perform such attack. The HA can trace back to > >>> these unwilling mobile nodes and take action (e.g. deny these > >>> unwilling mobile nodes service). Yes, by denying the > >> attacker of its > >>> tools, you can prevent the attack from escalating further. However, > >>> shutting down your own network to prevent such action is tad bit > >>> costly to the operator no? Maybe this was the intention of > >> the attacker in the first place. > >> > >> This point seems moot. If the goal of the attacker is to deny > >> service to "unwilling legit mobile nodes" that it is in > >> control of, then it doesn't need any of that re-direction > >> stuff: Since it controls them it can simply deny them > >> service. Or am I missing something? > > [Ben] The intention use previously was meant to say the goal of the > > attacker > > is to make it a hassle for the operator in providing service to its > > subscribers. If one MCoA MN is denied of service, the attacker can > > just > > 'capture' another MCoA MN to do its dirty work Since the operator is > > tracing, it is likely that the operator can figure out the root of > > the issue > > (e.g. the use of MCoA) base on the trend of the attack. Hence, the > > operator > > might limited the usage of MCoA until it finds the 'mastermind' > > behind all > > of this attack. I apologize the misuse of words in my last example > > ('shut > > down' might be too harsh). > > > > All in all, what I am trying to say is that tracing only limits the > > effect > > of the attack from escalating further and not preventing it. > > > > > We agree that tracing capabilities does not prevent that attack. The > point being discussed afaict is whether we think this tracing > capability is enough deterrent to make this attack not attractive to > be persued by an attacker. > > I mean, that is basically the case of security cameras that are > recording (i mean those that do not have a person looking at them all > the time). They do not prevent you from attacking but you know they > will catch you later if you do something > > this seems to be enough deterrent for many attackers, i guess. > Wouldn't this be the case too? > > Regards, marcelo > > > > > Regards, > > Benjamin Lim > > > >> > >>> Hence, base on the above points, wouldn't it be better if the home > >>> agent can prevent such problem from happening in the first place? > >> > >> See my comments on your two points above. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> --julien > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MEXT mailing list > > MEXT@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > > > _______________________________________________ > MEXT mailing list > MEXT@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext > _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext From Julianne-ottissor@abc-video.com Thu Jan 31 15:00:50 2008 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKfac-0004fK-Tl for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:00:50 -0500 Received: from [201.79.50.9] (helo=20179050009.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKfab-0001a5-M3 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:00:50 -0500 Message-ID: <001001c86443$f657ba30$09324fc9@7da5dc2c5837449> From: "Julianne rick" To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Be the talk of the town with your new huge schl0ng Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:00:43 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C86433.32CEEA30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C86433.32CEEA30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Make your p3nis a pocket rocket ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C86433.32CEEA30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Make your p3nis a pocket=20 rocket ----------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C86433.32CEEA30-- From TadquintEmerson@urlgreyhot.com Thu Jan 31 17:14:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702533A67A2; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:14:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 23.599 X-Spam-Level: *********************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=23.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24=2.189, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_MLH_Stock1=0.87] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 0.9 SARE_MLH_Stock1 Subject mentions stock or stock related words * 2.2 DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24 Date: is 12 to 24 hours after Received: date * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [59.6.179.235 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 1.1 DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS RBL: Envelope sender listed in bl.open-whois.org. * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14-FSBBAIqSL; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:14:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from customer82aa02.kornet (unknown [59.6.179.235]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BB3B23A67A4; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:14:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <335a601c8646f$e29c2310$ebb3063b@customer82aa02> From: "Tanner Sweet" To: Cc: , " =20
We told you to keep = watching, G &=20 S Minerals... Symol : GSML

Gold is reaching = record of $1000/=20 oz ... GSML is the undiscovered gem you should be invested=20 in.

Up 4 straight days with = record=20 volume

If you missed the move = from .13 to .17=20 dont dispair they have not even scratched the surfact.

This company is going to=20 $3.00

So grab yourself = some GSML and=20 earn easy 10 bagger

------=_NextPart_000_335A2_01C8646F.E29C2310-- From jannamandamusgeiger@librairie-saffroy.com Thu Jan 31 21:19:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599FE28C141 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:19:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 47.09 X-Spam-Level: *********************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=47.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DSBL=0.961, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 0.8 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D Host starts with d-d-d-d * 1.2 HOST_EQ_STATIC HOST_EQ_STATIC * 0.9 FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB Host is d-d-d-d * 4.4 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr * 2) * 1.6 FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D Helo is d-d-d-d * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 1.9 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP * 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 75] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 75] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: 118.168.188.232] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: 118.168.188.232] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [61.91.114.250 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 1.5 DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX RBL: Envelope sender in * bogusmx.rfc-ignorant.org * 1.0 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org * [] * 2.0 FM_DDDD_TIMES_2 Dual helo + host eq d_d_d_d Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rsYD-eYdNXX0 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:19:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from 61-91-114-250.static.asianet.co.th (61-91-114-250.static.asianet.co.th [61.91.114.250]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 843FA28C140 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3581 invoked from network); Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:21:12 +0700 Received: from unknown (HELO kteb) (96.191.145.231) by 61-91-114-250.static.asianet.co.th with SMTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:21:12 +0700 Message-ID: <002301c86492$42c7c3d0$e791bf60@kteb> From: To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 47.09 (5) Doctors endorse this miracle formula! Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:21:12 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 The baby-maker grows and develops GRADUALLY, not over night! http://118.168.188.232/jvyb/ From MayabductMelvin@killology.com Thu Jan 31 21:42:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA263A67F6; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:42:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 23.447 X-Spam-Level: *********************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=23.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_MLH_Stock7=1.66, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.4 HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE * 0.8 HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE * 1.7 SARE_MLH_Stock7 Various common stock subjects * 0.0 STOX_REPLY_TYPE STOX_REPLY_TYPE * 1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [24.212.17.78 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [24.212.17.78 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * 1.9 INVALID_MSGID Message-Id is not valid, according to RFC 2822 * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VraSMn9Eb+VP; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:42:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from douged8ab133ca.home (pool-96-233-64-26.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [96.233.64.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A65A13A67D8; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:42:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: 59a1f01c86495$6d813c70$0201a8c0@douged8ab133ca From: "Jeannie Doherty" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 23.447 (5) Market investor alert Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:43:02 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 No Looking back on G&S minerals Symbol-GSML Up 4 consecutive days for over 40% in profits and record volume Read the PR, the good news keeps coming. Add GSML to your Radar and watch it like a hawk. This company is going to $3. even if it hits half of projected forcast it would be a phenomenal 1000% profit. No other stock can deliver that in times like this Get in on GSML G&S minerals INC. From harriskone65@seznam.cz Thu Jan 31 21:48:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DED83A6802 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:48:20 -0800 (PST) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 9.966 X-Spam-Level: ********* X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=9.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[ADVANCE_FEE_2=1.234, ADVANCE_FEE_3=1.432, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, MILLION_USD=1.528, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, US_DOLLARS_3=0.63] X-Spam-Report: * 0.4 HELO_EQ_CZ HELO_EQ_CZ * 0.9 HOST_EQ_CZ HOST_EQ_CZ * 1.3 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header * 1.5 MILLION_USD BODY: Talks about millions of dollars * 0.6 US_DOLLARS_3 BODY: Mentions millions of $ ($NN,NNN,NNN.NN) * 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5013] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 1.2 ADVANCE_FEE_2 Appears to be advance fee fraud (Nigerian 419) * 1.4 ADVANCE_FEE_3 Appears to be advance fee fraud (Nigerian 419) Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bvgE6Y9gcz2Y for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:48:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxm.seznam.cz (mxl.seznam.cz [77.75.72.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 91D6E3A67D8 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 11472 invoked by uid 0); 1 Feb 2008 05:49:52 -0000 Cc: recipient list not shown: ; Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:49:49 +0100 (CET) Reply-To: harriskone100@yahoo.com.hk From: harriskone65@seznam.cz Received: from ([196.201.95.81]) by email.seznam.cz (Email.Seznam.cz) with HTTP for harriskone65@seznam.cz; Fri, 1 Feb 2008 6:49:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: ***SPAM*** 9.966 (5) =?us-ascii?Q?From=20Harris=20=26=20Sister=20Janet=20Kone?= Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1099.3143-5617-1692271381-1201844989@seznam.cz> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Abuse: helpdesk@seznam.cz X-Seznam-User: harriskone65@seznam.cz From Harris & Sister Janet Kone Abidjan, Cote D' Ivoire, West Africa. Happy New Year It is my pleasure to identify with you. I am Harris and My younger sister Janet Kone i am 19yr's old while my younger sister is 16yr's old. we are from sierra leone but residing in Ivory Coast west Africa. We are humbly seeking for your guidance and assistance inmigrating us to your country and also help us in transferring the sum of USD$6,000,000 (Six Million United State Dollars) inherited from my father late Alfred Kone. We are motivated to contact you after our prayers, as we get to know you better, we hope to gradually build trust, relationship and confidence in you as our step parents. So if you can be in position to assist us in any way, we will be glad and willing to offer you 15% of the total sum for your assistance in retrieving the money and effort input after the successful transfer of this money and investment. Indicate your interest towards assisting us by sending your phone # and address so that we can communicate with you at any time. we need your expected guidance in investing the money in any profitable business investment in your country. If you are willing to assist us, kindly get back to us immediately with your adequate communication. Thanks and God bless you. Your's Sincerely Harris & Janet Kone. From ElisaassociateMarin@allonlinecoupons.com Thu Jan 31 21:53:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4164C3A6806; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:53:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 16.902 X-Spam-Level: **************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=16.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06=0.274, DOS_OE_TO_MX=2.75, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.2 HOST_EQ_IT HOST_EQ_IT * 0.6 HELO_EQ_IT HELO_EQ_IT * 0.3 DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06 Date: is 3 to 6 hours after Received: date * 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 4 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address * [82.55.170.21 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 0.9 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL * [82.55.170.21 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.1 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to trusted network by host with * dynamic-looking rDNS * 3.1 FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK Forged mail pretending to be from MS Outlook * 2.8 DOS_OE_TO_MX Delivered direct to MX with OE headers Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vY4M-rjLoOd5; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from x1d28353b54984.homenet.telecomitalia.it (host21-170-dynamic.55-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [82.55.170.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D9D533A67FB; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:53:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <2367301c86474$b7717870$8501a8c0@x1d28353b54984> From: "Ora Jaramillo" To: Subject: ***SPAM*** 16.902 (5) Next big market winner Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:49:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_2366F_01C86474.B7717870" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_2366F_01C86474.B7717870 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We told you to keep watching, G & S Minerals... Symol : GSML Gold is reaching record of $1000/ oz ... GSML is the undiscovered gem = you should be invested in. Up 4 straight days with record volume If you missed the move from .13 to .17 dont dispair they have not even = scratched the surfact. This company is going to $3.00 So grab yourself some GSML and earn easy 10 bagger ------=_NextPart_000_2366F_01C86474.B7717870 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20
We told you to keep = watching, G &=20 S Minerals... Symol : GSML

Gold is reaching = record of $1000/=20 oz ... GSML is the undiscovered gem you should be invested=20 in.

Up 4 straight days with = record=20 volume

If you missed the move = from .13 to .17=20 dont dispair they have not even scratched the surfact.

This company is going to=20 $3.00

So grab yourself = some GSML and=20 earn easy 10 bagger

------=_NextPart_000_2366F_01C86474.B7717870-- From t.roberson_kf@rocketmail.com Thu Jan 31 23:46:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-nemo-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2553A6869; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:46:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Score: 92.457 X-Spam-Level: **************************************************************** X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=92.457 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, BODY_ENHANCEMENT=0.309, BODY_ENHANCEMENT2=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, MONEY_BACK=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_DSBL=0.961, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP=0.001, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_ADULT2=1.42, SARE_ENLRGYOUR=1.02, SARE_OBFU_PENIS_SUB=3.333, SUBJECT_FUZZY_PENIS=3.096, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10] X-Spam-Report: * 3.5 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100% * [score: 1.0000] * 1.5 FH_RELAY_NODNS We could not determine your Reverse DNS * 3.1 SUBJECT_FUZZY_PENIS Attempt to obfuscate words in Subject: * 3.3 SARE_OBFU_PENIS_SUB subject has obfuscated spammer topic * 2.3 MANGLED_PENIS BODY: mangled - Penis * 0.0 MONEY_BACK BODY: Money back guarantee * 0.3 BODY_ENHANCEMENT BODY: Information on growing body parts * 0.6 J_CHICKENPOX_32 BODY: 3alpha-pock-2alpha * 1.0 SARE_ENLRGYOUR BODY: Talks about "enlarging" something * 1.4 SARE_ADULT2 BODY: Contains adult material * 3.6 FRT_PENIS1 BODY: ReplaceTags: Penis * 0.0 BODY_ENHANCEMENT2 BODY: Information on getting larger body parts * 1.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100 Razor2 gives engine 8 confidence level * above 50% * [cf: 100] * 0.5 RAZOR2_CHECK Listed in Razor2 (http://razor.sf.net/) * 0.5 RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100 Razor2 gives confidence level above 50% * [cf: 100] * 20 URIBL_BLACK Contains an URL listed in the URIBL blacklist * [URIs: iuyregaea.com] * 10 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist * [URIs: iuyregaea.com] * 10 URIBL_JP_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the JP SURBL blocklist * [URIs: iuyregaea.com] * 10 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist * [URIs: iuyregaea.com] * 10 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist * [URIs: iuyregaea.com] * 1.1 URIBL_RHS_DOB Contains an URI of a new domain (Day Old Bread) * [URIs: iuyregaea.com] * 1.6 RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY RBL: NJABL: sender is an open proxy * [60.217.228.199 listed in combined.njabl.org] * 2.0 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net * [Blocked - see ] * 3.0 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL * [60.217.228.199 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] * 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP RBL: SORBS: sender is open HTTP proxy server * [60.217.228.199 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * 1.0 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org * [] * 0.1 RDNS_NONE Delivered to trusted network by a host with no rDNS * 0.6 HELO_MISMATCH_COM HELO_MISMATCH_COM Received: from core3.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0R2qkW04h7eJ; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:46:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from latinmail.com (unknown [60.217.228.199]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5053A6842; Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:46:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: ***SPAM*** 92.457 (5) Hey. Is big pen)is better ? 1ap5 Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:49:56 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Tory Roberson" Message-ID: <1201848596.6452@rocketmail.com> To: nemo@ietf.org, nemo-archive@ietf.org, nsis@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear nemo@ietf.org http://iuyregaea.com Do you want Enlarge your Penis? » Gain 3+ Inches In Length. 100% Money Back Guarantee. » *3 FREE Bottles Of ManSter !! http://iuyregaea.com Thanks Jennifer Vargas nemo@ietf.org wrote: > Hey. Is big penis better ? dgwq013rjw- out me now http://iuyregaea.com/w.php