Subject: [Mip6] [draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-00] Issue 53

From: Gerardo Giaretta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:29:24 +0200

I would like to hear your thoughts about issue #53 in
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-00. 

The current version of the draft states:

        Additionally, it could be useful to provide an ability for the
Mobile 
        Node to discover a Home Agent placed in a particular location
(e.g. 
        on the visited link). In order to achieve this, the Mobile Node
must 
        be able to construct a DNS request such that the DNS server will
be 
        able to reply with a Home Agent from the requested location.
This can 
        be accomplished by using a specific  naming convention for the
FQDNs 
        of the Home Agents. As an example, an operator might assign the
FQDN 
        "ha.locationA.operator.com" to the Home Agent located in
"location A" 
        and the FQDN "ha.locationB.operator.com" to the Home Agent
located in 
        "location B". If the Mobile Node wants to use a Home Agent
located in 
        "location A", it will set the QNAME to
"ha.locationA.operator.com" in 
        the DNS request.         

In his review, Jari mentioned:
"Possible, but the description is mostly handwaving and would probably
benefit from a more generic solution in any case. Suggest
removing this"

Based on the discussion we've had so far, we have two possible options:

1. remove the text and do not provide a way in
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split to identify whether or not the HA is
local (based on Jari comment)

2. define a canonical local HA naming convention for interoperability

Please provide your comments.

--Gerardo

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to 
[email-masked]. Thank you
====================================================================

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:11:58 -0700

> 2. define a canonical local HA naming convention for interoperability

I dont think anybody wanted to define a canonical name for local
HA. even in the first two paragraphs of section 5.1.1 we dont
define a canonical name. we only provide an example.

for HA lookup by name, we leave it to the deployment to configure
the MN with the right FQDNs. this means we dont define any
canonical name in section 5.1.1.

for HA lookup by service we need to define something. and we do
that in section 5.1.2.

so we just keep the current text. maybe add more text to make
sure it does not appear like handwaving. Jari, what would like
to see more specifically?

Vijay

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:39:37 -0400

As I don't believe we can come up with an acceptable canonical name
for local HA naming, I prefer solution 1.  Also, does the following
example in the first paragraph of section 5.1.1 give much insights to
implementors to understand how to configure an HA name?  If not, I'd
prefer just removing it.

"
  As an example, the Mobile Node could be configured with the name
  "ha1.example.com", where "example.com" is the domain name of the MSP
  granting the mobility service.
"

Regards,

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:34:20 -0700

I think we should remove this text in order to advance this document.

A standardized naming convention for HAs could be done in a separate 
document.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerardo Giaretta" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: [Mip6] [draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-split-00] Issue 53

--Gerardo

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:33:58 -0700

>   granting the mobility service.

just to make sure. Yoshi, you are saying the entire
section 5.1.1 needs to be removed. not just the last
paragraph which describes HA lookup by location (which
is what is being discussed here).

Vijay

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:04:58 -0400

Hi Vijay,

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:33:58PM -0700, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> section 5.1.1 needs to be removed. 

No.  My opinion is:

- Section 5.1.1 should exist.

- The last paragraph of section 5.1.1 is not needed.

- Importance of the last sentence of the first paragraph (quoted
above) of section 5.1.1 is questionable.  (I know this part is not
what is being discussed here, but just a comment.)

Regards,

Yoshihiro Ohba

> not just the last