Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Tightening RR spec wrt RR between two Mobile Nodes

From: "Greg O'Shea" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:00:18 +0100

>>Yes. The BC check is also included in the new text. The text is: 
For the scenario I described the text should refer to the Binding Update
List rather than the BC.

>packet must be tunneled to MN2's home agent.
For HoT the tunnel has to be secure else the Home Cookie may still be
visible on MN1's foreign net.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 22:46:38 +0300

> For the scenario I described the text should refer to the Binding Update

Hmm... maybe I now finally understand. It seems that that the
current text in 6.1 needs to talk about both BCE and BUL checks:

    Mobility Header messages MUST NOT be sent with a type 2 routing
    header, except as described in Section 9.5.4 for Binding
    Acknowledgement.  Mobility Header messages also MUST NOT be used with
    a Home Address destination option, except as described in Section
    11.7.1 and Section 11.7.2 for Binding Update.  Binding Update List or
    Binding Cache information (when present) for the destination MUST NOT
    be used in sending Mobility Header messages.  That is, Mobility
    Header messages bypass both the Binding Cache check described in
    Section 9.3.2 and the Binding Update List check described in Section
    11.3.1 which are normally performed for all packets.  This applies
    even for message sent to or from a correspondent node which is itself
    a mobile node.

> visible on MN1's foreign net.

Yes. I think this is covered by our requirement to protect the RR
when tunneled via home agent.

--Jari