Subject: [nemo] RO between MR and CN

From: Tânia Pinto Calçada <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:15:38 +0100

Hello,

I am interested in route optimization between the MR and the CN. I read
the taxonomy draft (draft-thubert-nemo-ro-taxonomy-02.txt), and several
other documents related to RO:

draft-jeong-nemo-ro-ndproxy-02.txt

draft-leekj-nemo-ro-pd-02.txt

draft-na-nemo-gen-ro-model-00.txt

draft-na-nemo-path-control-header-00.txt

draft-wakikawa-nemo-orc-00.txt

ROProblem.txt

I also read some threads of the NEMO mailing list
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nemo/current/index.html>
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nemo/current/index.html, however I
am still looking for a document that describes a solution for the RO
between the MR and the CN. 

The taxonomy draft says at section 2:

“A major issue with this form of optimization is that the end-to-end

   principle of the MIPv6 Reverse Routability (RR) test is broken.  The

   RR test is meant to ensure the care-of address (CoA) and the home

   address (HoA) are collocated. With a mobile network, when the MR

   performs RO on behalf of the MNNs, the CoA in BU will be the MR's

   CoA.  Thus, a MNN is reachable via the CoA, but not at the CoA.

   Some tricks may be performed on the fly by the MRs but it seems that

   a clean MR-to-CN optimization for Nemo will impact the CN function.”

Can somebody point the “tricks” that may be performed, or indicate a
document that explores this subject?

Regards,

Tania Calcada

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:26:43 +0200

Hello Tania, how are you.

>  document that explores this subject?

Tania, do you know about the RR tests performed by Mobile IPv6 for
hosts?  It is a Mobile Node and the Correspondent Node that perform such
"pings" to each other, sort of confirming their identity (the CoA and
the HoA are checked for being reachable).

Since NEMO uses a Mobile Router instead of a Mobile Host, and since the
LFN (fixed node within the moving network) does not perform Mobile IPv6
functions, then some "tricks" may be needed on MR in order to extend RR.
  RR would be performed by MR "on behalf" of LFN.

This has security aspects in that MR should "be sure" it does the RR
tests for LFN (and not for an attacker), "delegation of security between
LFN and MR" mechanisms were suggested some time ago, check the old old
monet NEMO mmailing lists archives, I'll prepare a URL for that soon.

Otherwise I'm not aware of other documents extending RR to support MR.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:15:10 +0200

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Can somebody point the “tricks” that may be performed, or indicate
>>  a document that explores this subject?
> 
>  tests for LFN (and not for an attacker), "delegation of security 
> between LFN and MR" mechanisms were suggested some time ago, check 
> the old old monet NEMO mmailing lists archives, I'll prepare a URL 
> for that soon.

Hi, I wanted to mention that much RO discussion at the beginning of the
monet BoF (cca December 2001) was captured on archives:

http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/archives/monet-arch-dec01-feb02.txt
http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/archives/monet-arch-feb02-oct02.txt
http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/archives/nemo-arch-nov02-may03.txt

Browsing txt files is difficult, but sometimes rewarding.  For example,
if interested about initial discussions about Mobile Routers see cca
1994 for Mobile IPv4 predecessors:
http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/mobile/mobile-ip-mail/502

I also take this opportunity to say that the NEMO Base DT mails are
archived but I'm not sure about the policy of making them public.  That
archive does not contain RO discussion IIRC.

Also take this opportunity to say that the idea of BGP with mobile
networks and no NEMO was recently presented at NANOG too:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0405/pdf/abarbanel.pdf

Alex

---

From: Tania Pinto Calcada <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:30:55 +0100

Hello Alex,

comments in-line

> the HoA are checked for being reachable).

Yes I know how this Return Routability Procedure works.

> monet NEMO mmailing lists archives, I'll prepare a URL for that soon.

I don't find these archives you mentioned, can you send an URL (a generic one, 
at least).

What about these aspects that were described in the taxonomy draft, are there 
any solutions?
" A major issue with this form of optimization is that the end-to-end 
principle of the MIPv6 Reverse Routability (RR) test is broken.
...
With a mobile network, when the MR performs RO on behalf of the MNNs, the CoA 
in BU will be the MR's CoA.  Thus, a MNN is reachable via the CoA, but not at 
the CoA."

Tania

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:39:49 +0200

Hi Tania, Alex,

	Within the FP6 Daidalos European project, we are defining and
implementing a NEMO RO solution. One part of this solution consists in
performing RO between the MR (on behalf of the LFNs) and the CN. The
solution was presented last August in the ASWN 2004 workshop.

	It is available at:

	http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/papers/miron_aswn2004.pdf

	Kind regards,

	Carlos J.

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano - http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
GPG FP: 58C3 4227 AF8D 01D4 5A09  A617 E6F2 B23E DAD6 AA40

---

From: "T.J.Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:23:55 -0700

I have (more or less) all of the MONET/NEMO list mails, and all of the 
design team mails (which we all agreed to make public a while ago) on 
my personal mail server, which I am making public.

Set your incoming IMAP mail server to deimos.multihop.net
You can use TLS/SSL, or not. But you must use password authentication, 
because anonymous doesn't work with DIGEST/MD5 or CRAM/MD5  
authentication (for obvious reasons, if you think about it).

userid: anonymous
password: <your email address>
just use "anonymous" as your userid and your e-mail address as your 
password, like anonymous ftp). The server is deimos.multihop.net, and

-TJ