Subject: [Mip6] Binding Lifetime for De-registrations

From: Christian Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:19:22 +0200

Hi everbody,

one question regarding the binding lifetime for Mobile IPv6
de-registrations.

Mobile nodes must set the Lifetime field in a de-registration Binding
Update (BU) to zero, AND the home and care-of addresses must be equal.
Correspondent nodes delete a binding if the Lifetime field of the BU is
zero OR the home and care-of addresses are equal.

Assume that the mobile node sets the Lifetime field in a de-registration
BU to a non-zero value.  What would be the Lifetime field in the
corresponding Binding Acknowledgement (BA)?

IMO, the Lifetime field in the BA should be zero for a de-registration
regardless of the lifetime used in the BU.  But RFC 3775 does not really
answer this question.  (See sections 6.1.8, 9.5.3, and 9.5.4.)

Is this something for RFC 3775bis?

Regards,
- Christian

--
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:59:43 +0300

> Is this something for RFC 3775bis?

Probably.

--Jari

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:32:10 -0700

> Update (BU) to zero, AND the home and care-of addresses must be equal.

hmm.. not really. lifetime set to zero is enough for the HA to
treat the BU as a de-registration BU.

> corresponding Binding Acknowledgement (BA)?

zero. anyway, it does not matter. if the MN gets a BAck with
status set to 0 (successful) in response to a de-registration
BU that it sent, it knows the HA has removed the binding cache
entry.

> Is this something for RFC 3775bis?

yes. if its not clear, it should be clarified.

Vijay

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:33:41 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   
=> this is just an application of the well known principle.

=> the lifetime in a BA doesn't need to reflect the BU one (i.e.,
it is the granted lifetime, IMHO this means it should be <=).

   IMO, the Lifetime field in the BA should be zero for a de-registration
   regardless of the lifetime used in the BU.

=> the granted lifetime is clearly zero, so I agree.

   But RFC 3775 does not really answer this question.

=> the RFC is already far too long (:-).

Regards

[email-masked]