Subject: [Mip4] Issue with 3344bis

From: "Avi Lior" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:41:29 -0400

Sorry for the lateness of this comment...

 Section 3.6
  
 "A mobile node MUST be configured with a netmask and a mobility
    security association for each of its home agents."
  
 This seems to be a bad thing if we are talking about roaming and
dynamic HA assignement.
  
 Instead it should say that it MAY be configured with .....
  
 or MUST be configurable with....

 
> ========================
> 
> Avi Lior                                    
> Bridgewater Systems Corporation
> Phone :  +1 (613) 591-9104 x6417
> Cell    :  +1 (613) 796-4183
> E-mail : mailto:[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>
> www.bridgewatersystems.com <http://www.bridgewatersystems.com/>
> 
>  

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:06:08 -0700

>  This seems to be a bad thing if we are talking about roaming and

I think this is ok. as far as 3344bis is concerned, at least the
netmask for the home link and a mobility security association
is required for the protocol to work. later specifications talk
about how the protocol in 3344bis would work without having to
pre-configere a netmask (RFC4433), or without having to
pre-configure a mobility security association (for e.g. RFC 3957).

since there is a plan to advance 3344bis to draft standard we
don't want normative references to RFC 4433 or RFC 3957.

Vijay

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:17:14 +0200

>  or MUST be configurable with....

No.  It requires there to be a security association and a netmask
for *each of its home agents*.

If you're dynamically assigning all home agents, you don't need
anything at all as long as you have zero home agents assigned.

But when you later have dynamically assigned home agents, each of
them MUST have an associated netmask and a mobility security
association.  And this makes sense - having a HA without netmask
or security association is unworkable.

I think this is correct, and I see no problem with the text.

	Henrik

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:51:07 +0200

> Instead it should say that it MAY be configured with .....

I mainly agree it should be a MAY, not a MUST.

For MN to know when it's at home or not, it may pre-configure its "home"
netmask.  That's one possibility.  There are others, non-specified,
which could also be MAYs.

One particular example is if MN uses DHCP to dynamically configure
addresses then it could pre-configure the address of the "home" DHCP
Server (or of the "home" DHCP Relay) and thus know when it's at home or
not, without pre-configuring a "home" netmask.

Alex