headers
Basavaraj Patil | 2 Jun 2006 18:00
Picon

WG LC: draft-ietf-mip6-location-privacy-ps (01)


Hello,

This is the working group last call for I-D:
draft-ietf-mip6-location-privacy-ps-01.txt (IP Address Location
Privacy and Mobile IPv6: Problem Statement)

WG LC will end on June 16th, 06. Please review and send your comments
before the deadline.

The document is intended to be published as an Informational RFC.

-Chairs

The link for the I-D:
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-location-privacy-ps-01.txt
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Rajeev Koodli | 7 Jun 2006 01:32
Picon

MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction


Hello folks,

we have problem dealing with change of HoA with a CN.

If a MN wishes to change its HoA with a CN (e.g., use a different 
pseudo-hoa for
privacy purposes), it has no _reliable_ way of knowing whether it has
existing sessions with that CN.

Any thoughts on how to handle this MIP - ULP interaction?

-Rajeev
Permalink | Reply | 38 comments |
headers
Wassim Haddad | 7 Jun 2006 01:43
Picon
Picon

Re: [Mobopts] MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction

Hi,

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Rajeev Koodli wrote:

> we have problem dealing with change of HoA with a CN.
>
> If a MN wishes to change its HoA with a CN (e.g., use a different
> pseudo-hoa for privacy purposes), it has no _reliable_ way of
> knowing whether it has existing sessions with that CN.

=> Can you please elaborate more on this? Is there any particular
draft you're referring to? What type of pseudo-HoA you're considering?

Regards,

Wassim H.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rajeev Koodli | 7 Jun 2006 02:12
Picon

Re: Re: [Mobopts] MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction


Hi Wassim,

Wassim Haddad wrote:

>>we have problem dealing with change of HoA with a CN.
>>
>>If a MN wishes to change its HoA with a CN (e.g., use a different
>>pseudo-hoa for privacy purposes), it has no _reliable_ way of
>>knowing whether it has existing sessions with that CN.
>>    
>>
>
>=> Can you please elaborate more on this? Is there any particular
>draft you're referring to? What type of pseudo-HoA you're considering?
>
>  
>
No particular draft as such. The problem is if the MN wishes to change 
its HoA
for whatever reasons (3041 style privacy included), it has no reliable 
means of
determining whether there is an existing connection/session or not.

-Rajeev

>Regards,
>
>Wassim H.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles E. Perkins | 7 Jun 2006 02:35
Picon

Re: [Mobopts] MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction


Hello Rajeev,

It could be that there isn't really a problem.

Suppose that the mobile node keeps track of whether or not
the correspondent node has a binding.  Then, it can notify
the correspondent if it changes home address, in addition
to sending notifications about each new care-of address.

If the correspondent node has no binding, then we can
imagine that there hasn't been any traffic recently and that
there are no TCP sessions.

In that case, if the correspondent node wants to send
data to the mobile node, it would have to re-resolve the
mobile's host name.  This could possibly require that
the old home address first would fail.  Presumably, this
isn't exactly a mobility problem.  I guess the motivation
is to allow a device to operate with a new home agent
in a new network but still maintain its existing "identity"
from the point of view of some correspondent nodes.

If I missed out on previous discussion about this point,
please excuse my lack of context!  Otherwise, can you
say what use scenarios you had in mind?

Regards,
Charlie P.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Rajeev Koodli | 7 Jun 2006 03:18
Picon

Re: [Mobopts] MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction


Hi Charlie,

Charles E. Perkins wrote:

>
> Hello Rajeev,
>
> It could be that there isn't really a problem.
>
That would be good. :-)

> Suppose that the mobile node keeps track of whether or not
> the correspondent node has a binding.  Then, it can notify
> the correspondent if it changes home address, in addition
> to sending notifications about each new care-of address.
>
> If the correspondent node has no binding, then we can
> imagine that there hasn't been any traffic recently and that
> there are no TCP sessions.
>
The CN (and the MN) can have a binding and not have a TCP
connection. So, the emphasis here is on "reliably" in "being able to detect
an existing connection". The BCE lifetime is not correlated to the lifetime
of a TCP connection. (You _could_ have a CN teardown a binding
and have it later send a BRR for a new connection. But this won't
work easily with multiple connections).

> In that case, if the correspondent node wants to send
> data to the mobile node, it would have to re-resolve the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Vijay Devarapalli | 7 Jun 2006 03:23

Re: MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction

Rajeev Koodli wrote:

> If a MN wishes to change its HoA with a CN (e.g., use a different 
> pseudo-hoa for
> privacy purposes), it has no _reliable_ way of knowing whether it has
> existing sessions with that CN.

I read this paragraph three times, but couldn't get
the context.

if in the privacy context, I assume there is still
a *real* HoA. the pseudo HoA appears in the route
optimized traffic to the CN *instead* of the real
HoA. the CN knows the real HoA and the pseudo HoA.
the mapping from the real HoA to the pseudo HoA is
done using the binding update list at the MN and
the binding cache entry at the CN.

if not for privacy, perhaps the mobile node shouldn't
change its HoA abruptly, but let existing sessions
continue with the existing HoA and use the new HoA
for new sessions. the mobile node would also have
to update the DNS entry if it wants its FQDN to
resolve to the new HoA.

hope this helps.

Vijay
Permalink | Reply | 31 comments |
headers
Vijay Devarapalli | 7 Jun 2006 03:45

Re: Re: [Mobopts] MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction

Rajeev Koodli wrote:
> Typically, you need to resolve a user identifier to device identifier 
> before
> starting a connection, and you can construct the mapping in such
> a way as to support dynamic HoAs.

the bootstrapping specifications can handle updating
FQDN to HoA mapping. for identifiers other than FQDN
we would need additional work.

Vijay
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sam Xia | 7 Jun 2006 10:22
Favicon

RE: Mip6 Digest, Vol 26, Issue 1


Hi, Rajeev ,
   I am very interested in your draft. But there are some points I don't
understand clearly.
1: at the first paragraph of page 2, there is a sentence as below:
   "Often, a binding between these two identifiers is also available, e.g.,
through DNS".
   Can you add some texts to clarify it more clearly?

2: at the third paragraph of page 2, there is a sentence as below:
   " In this document, the concerns arising from the use of a globally
   visible identifier, such as a Home Address, when roaming are
   described ".
  I think there should be a literal error to be revised.

3: I think that it will be very useful to add some texts to describe the
impacts from revealing roaming of MN to home network.
    Maybe the home nodes have more means to determine that MN is away from
home network.

 Best Regards, Sam Xia 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mip6-request <at> ietf.org [mailto:mip6-request <at> ietf.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:00 AM
> To: mip6 <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Mip6 Digest, Vol 26, Issue 1
> 
> Send Mip6 mailing list submissions to
> 	mip6 <at> ietf.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
James Kempf | 7 Jun 2006 17:19

Re: [Mobopts] MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction

Charlie,

Let's see if I understand. Are you saying that if the mobile node wants to 
change home address, it should change existing sessions by treating the 
change as route optimization? That is, it would send a route optimization 
binding update (with appropriate security) with the new home address as a 
care of address? Presumably new sessions would be started with the new home 
address.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charliep <at> iprg.nokia.com>
To: "Rajeev Koodli" <rajeev <at> iprg.nokia.com>
Cc: <mip6 <at> ietf.org>; <mobopts <at> irtf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] MIP and Upper Layer Protocol interaction

>
> Hello Rajeev,
>
> It could be that there isn't really a problem.
>
> Suppose that the mobile node keeps track of whether or not
> the correspondent node has a binding.  Then, it can notify
> the correspondent if it changes home address, in addition
> to sending notifications about each new care-of address.
>
> If the correspondent node has no binding, then we can
> imagine that there hasn't been any traffic recently and that
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane