Subject: [Mip4] Comments on draft - draft-acee-mip4-bulk-revocation-00.txt

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:27:07 -0800

> 
> 8. Bulk Revocations					10 min Acee
>    draft-acee-mip4-bulk-revocation
> 
>    This document describes an extension to Mobile IPv4 Registration
>    Revocation (as described in RFC 3543) for a home or 
> foreign agent to
>    revoke mobile IP services for multiple bindings or visitors with a
>    single registration revocation exchange.
> 

Hi Acee,

Clarification to my comment at the MIC in the MIP4 meeting.

This is a good draft. Useful for some administrative purposes.
Just two high-level comments.

If the GRE key option draft becomes the WG document, this draft
should probably state the entity receiving the Bulk Revocation
message SHOULD not terminate bindings that have the GRE key tag,
unless it can definitively identify the mobile node using the
IP address specified in the filter range. So, both the features
can co-exist.

Not sure, if the scope of termination using tunnel type will be
useful. 

I will send the detailed review comments at some other time.

Regards
Sri

-- 
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: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:13:01 -0500

Hi Sri,

> IP address specified in the filter range. So, both the features

This sounds reasonable. It seems to be that if GRE keys are being  
used to support overlapping address spaces, the proposed GRE key  
extension would need to be specified on all applicable MIP messages  
(including normal RFC 3543 revocation).

> Not sure, if the scope of termination using tunnel type will be

Since supporting GRE is optional in RFC 3344, we allow it to be  
configured. If you remove the GRE option, the corresponding bindings  
will be removed. However, I'm not sure that allowing this to be  
configured is that useful.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:50:59 -0600

Hi Henrik/All,
I probably should wait until the chairs publish the Vancouver meeting
minutes, however, I remember that there was some discussion about this
GRE extension proposal breaking the existing MIP4 deployment.

I actually would like to go further, my understanding is that any new
proposal for a new MIP4 extension should be client MIP4 centric and
address both the MIP4 FA-CoA and Co-located CoA models. However, I
hardly can understand the use case and the need for such extension in
Client MIP4?

Regards,
Ahmad

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

9. MIPv4 Extension for GRE Key Exchange.
   draft-yegani-gre-key-extension

   The GRE specification contains a Key field, which MAY contain a value
   that is used to identify a particular GRE data stream.  This
   specification defines a new Mobile IP extension that is used to
   exchange the value to be used in the GRE Key field.