Subject: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:15:42 +0200

I have reviewed this draft. It is a well written draft and focuses on 
the right things. I have no major concerns and I have sent the document 
forward to an IETF last call and eventually an IESG evaluation 
(currently scheduled for March 17th). I did have a couple of comments, 
however, and I let the authors decide if they want to address them. Feel 
free to update the document even as it is beginning its last call period.

Jari

> Maintaining local forwarding between the MN and the
> regular IPv6 CN gets more complex in case the MN performs a handover
> to a different MAG.  Such use case is not considered in the
> specification and out of scope of this problem statement.  This
> document focuses on use cases, where both nodes, the MN and the CN,
> are each registered with an LMA and both obtain PMIPv6 mobility
> service.
>   

I think you need to be clearer here. I think the point is that PMIP 
hosts are always regular IPv6 CNs but you only consider the case where 
both endpoints are *within a PMIP network* and in the area served by an 
LMA in a *domain of LMAs*.

Section 4 seems to be missing some kind of a policy function. I think 
most deployments would need a way to control whether route optimization 
is desired or not. In some cases it might not be, e.g., if some 
accounting or firewall functions reside in the LMA.

Section 6 should start with a short statement about the security 
concerns that a security solution for route optimization should help 
mitigate. For instance, it seems that an insecure route optimization 
mechanism would allow compromised network components or bad roaming 
partners to hijack or block any traffic for any mobile node. In insecure 
route optimization mechanism might also also outsiders (e.g., Internet 
hosts) to do the same, which would be even worse. There may also be some 
DoS issues.