Subject: [netext] Review of draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:51:12 +0100

Hi all,

I've read draft-ietf-netext-access-network-option-00 and I have some
comments:

- I think the document is OK in general.
- The normative text of Section 3 needs to be revised. For example,
there are lots of normative words in lowercase.
- Can a PBU carry more than one ANI option? It is not clearly mentioned,
though Figure 1 may indicate it is possible (as there is both BSSID and
Geo-Loc shown as part of the identification of the access network.
- Figure 3 is not referred in the document.
- I think there should be text dealing with the case in which an LMA not
supporting/understanding the ANI option receives a PBU carrying one.
- It seems that included Nw-ID types are 802.11 related. Is there no
other case (e.g., 3GPP related) worth including?
- Does the ANI option introduce privacy issues? In case an attacker was
able to overhear PBUs, it could be able to know where a particular MN is
geographically located. Not sure this is a realistic concern in a real
deployment, but authors might want to mention that IPsec encryption
could be used to mitigate this problem.

Thanks,

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano  http://www.netcom.it.uc3m.es/
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

---

From: Jong-Hyouk Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:37:30 +0100

Dear all.

I would like to add some comments related to location privacy. Plz, see
inline.

2011/10/30 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>

> could be used to mitigate this problem.

Thanks to Carlos's comment, I read again the internet draft and found that
the access network identifier option presented in the draft will definitely
introduce the location privacy issue of a mobile node if PBU/PBA messages
carrying the access network identifier and the mobile node identifier are
not protected in terms of confidentiality protection.

Even if the PBU/PBA messages are fired from MAGs (infrastructures), those
are for mobile nodes. Eavesdroppers easily obtain the current location of
mobile nodes and possibly track all the movement of mobile nodes.

Note that RFC 5213 does not require the confidentiality protection to
PBU/PBA messages.

Thanks.

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

-- 
IMARA Team, INRIA, France.
Jong-Hyouk Lee, living somewhere between /dev/null and /dev/random.

#email: hurryon (at) gmail (dot) com || jong-hyouk.lee (at) inria (dot) fr
#webpage: https://sites.google.com/site/hurryon/