Re: Section 8 comment in IESG review

Hi Hesham,

Soliman Hesham wrote:
> I saw Steve Bellovin's comment on this section below.
> Since I've been wanting to raise the same point, I have 
> a short comment.
> 
> 8:      This text is unclear:
> 
>            When the Mobile Router and the Home Agent exchange routes
>            through a dynamic routing protocol, the Mobile Router
>            should be careful in including the same Mobile Network
>            Prefixes in the Binding Update to the Home Agent and in
>            the routing protocol updates.  The Home Agent depending
>            on its configuration might not add routes based on the
>            prefix information in the Binding Updates at all, and
>            might use only the routing protocol updates.  Moreover,
>            including the same prefix information in both the Binding
>            Update and the routing protocol update is redundant.
> 
>         Do you mean "be careful to include the same information in
>         both places" -- redunancy is sometimes good.  Or do you
>         mean "be careful to avoid doing this"?  Personally, I think
>         the former is more appropriate, because it allows a check
>         on the validity of the routing information.  Note that the
>         prefixes announced via binding updates are checked for
>         authorization; routing data generally is not.  I would thus
>         suggest that routing advertisements MUST NOT contain any
>         prefixes not known to the home agent by either implicit
>         mode configuration or explicit mode announcement.