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

From: Marco Liebsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:04:34 +0100

Jari,

thanks for your feedback. All your comments are correct and we should 
address them
in an update. I'll propose and post text for the three sections you 
point to in hope for
an update by e.o. next week.

marco

Jari Arkko wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext