Re: Re: RR checks to avoid DoS attacks

Jari Arkko wrote:

> Tero Kivinen wrote:
>
>>> Personally I think it would be also acceptable to do the RR check 
>>> after changing the address. That is, the gateway updates the SAs 
>>> immediately, but then sends a separate informational exchange 
>>> containing some kind of cookie. What do others think
>>> about this?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would think that would be ok, for most of the scenarios. In some
>> cases (completely unauthenticated connection to video stream server)
>> could put the traffic on hold while waiting the RR to succeed, but
>> that would be local matter.
>
>
> This would be pretty good, but personally, I still think it
> would be both simpler and more secure to do the RR first.
>
> Regarding simplicity, I'd like to avoid introducing too
> many additional parameters or configuration, so I'd
> rather have the MOBIKE RFC specify when the exchange
> needs to be done than make it configurable. Regarding
> security, the issue is amplification, some of which will
> still be possible during the timeout period for the RR test.
> We should also remember that the folks who need to decide
> whether to require a strict RR test before moving the flow
> are not the same ones as the potential victims.
>
> --Jari
>
The remote access GW - which can initiate the RR test at will -  would 
be affected more than the victim, right?

Lakshminath