[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Internal WG Review: MIPv6 Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop)



heretical comment:

--On 11. september 2003 14:47 -0400 iesg-secretary@ietf.org wrote:

Any packets between the correspondent node
and the mobile node sent or in-flight during this time arrive at the
old care of address, where they are dropped since the mobile node no
longer has link connectivity with the old subnet.

I believe this is more correctly phrased as "If the mobile node no longer has link connectivity with the old subnet, any packets...."


The obvious, but not always practical, solution to the problem (keeping both links during handover) is impliclity alluded to later, under "FMIPv6" (link preconfiguration), but is not mentioned explicitly anywhere.

And of course the obvious common question: Where are the security requirements going to be developed....?
(HMIPv6 introduces an obvious point for man-in-the-middle attacks, which may not even have to be on-link, for instance. So it's not security neutral....)


Harald