Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] FW: Make use of the GNAIE draft in Diameter MIPv4

From: "Ahmad Muhanna"<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:47:42 -0600

Hi Phil;

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Tony is asking to use GAINE draft after what he thinks is a minor change.
However, your suggestion is to create a new draft and to incorporate the
pieces from the deprecated GANIE draft into it.

Is there any reason for this?

Regards;
Ahmad Muhanna

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:23 PM
To: MIP ([email-masked])
Subject: [mobile-ip] FW: Make use of the GNAIE draft in Diameter MIPv4

Hi folks,

   we received this note from Tony this morning.  We would like to support
alt 2 by
generating a new draft describing the problem and incorporating the pieces
from the deprecated
GNAIE draft into it.  They need this in a hurry, so we'd like to hear in
advance if anyone
has objection to this, otherwise we'll make it a working group item, and
generate a WG last
call on it straightaway.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Johansson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:59 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Make use of the GNAIE draft in Diameter MIPv4

Hi Phil and Basavaraj,

My name is Tony Johansson and as you may know I'm the new editor of the
Diameter MIPv4 application. In process of solving the last remaining issue,
it has been identified that the protocol is still lacking some major
functionality in some cases of handoffs, since the Diameter MIPv4
application allows you to have more than one AAAH in the same subdomain of a
realm. Please see, issue  #299 and issue #301 at
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/AAA/issues.html for a detailed description of
the issues.

During, the AAA working group meeting at IETF53 I presented the issues and
two alternative ways in which we can workout a solution to the open issues -
see below:

Alt1: Clarifications / new requirements without any new dependencies to MIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

AAAH
- Require that each subdomain of a realm is authorized/authenticated by
exactly one AAAH. So while a home network may have multiple AAAH's, each
subdomain will have exactly one AAAH.

- Or, require that, if the home realm has multiple AAA servers to which the
same user can be routed to, then there MUST be a synchronization mechanism
between the AAAH servers. However, the specific synchronization mechanism is
beyond the scope of this spec.

 AAAF
- How to map HA IP address to HA FQDN is still open. Reverse DNS look up is
not at all a straightforward solution for this...

Alt 2: New dependencies to MIP, by requiring the usage of the GNAIE draft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

AAAH
- Require that the MN support the GNAIE draft, updated to include the
definition of a AAAH NAI.  When sending a MIP RegReq, this AAAH NAI would be
included to guarantee that a registered user always ends up in the same
initial AAAH.

AAAF
- The mapping of the HA IP address and HA FQDN, Host and realm would be
automatically solved, since this would be included in the MIP RegReq as
well.

There was a very clear and strong consensus that alternative 2 would be by
far the best solution. However, this means more work and dependencies to the
MIP working group and the goal is set to have the Diameter MIPv4 appl. draft
in working group last call by the April 2nd. Looking at the GNAIE draft, I
done see that much work needs to be done to make it fulfill our needs, so to
me it could easily be done in time, but the big question is how quickly
could it be pushed through the MIP working group and go to last call?  I
would really need to get your opinion on this asap., so I know if I'm asking
for the impossible or not :).

Best Regards,

Tony

---

From: "Haseeb Akhtar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:19:12 -0600

RE: [mobile-ip] FW: Make use of the GNAIE draft in Diameter MIPv4Hello Phil,

I agree with Tony in that we resurrect the GNAIE draft and add the minor
changes.

There is no need to create another draft, is there?

Regards,

Haseeb
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ahmad Muhanna
  Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:48 PM
  To: [email-masked]'
  Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] FW: Make use of the GNAIE draft in Diameter MIPv4

  Hi Phil;

  Regards;
  Ahmad Muhanna

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Phil Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:23 PM
  To: MIP ([email-masked])
  Subject: [mobile-ip] FW: Make use of the GNAIE draft in Diameter MIPv4

  Hi folks,

  Phil

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Tony Johansson [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 1:59 AM
  To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
  Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
  Subject: Make use of the GNAIE draft in Diameter MIPv4

  Hi Phil and Basavaraj,

  My name is Tony Johansson and as you may know I'm the new editor of the
  Diameter MIPv4 application. In process of solving the last remaining
issue,
  it has been identified that the protocol is still lacking some major
  functionality in some cases of handoffs, since the Diameter MIPv4
  application allows you to have more than one AAAH in the same subdomain of
a
  realm. Please see, issue  #299 and issue #301 at
  http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/AAA/issues.html for a detailed description
of
  the issues.

  During, the AAA working group meeting at IETF53 I presented the issues and
  two alternative ways in which we can workout a solution to the open
issues -
  see below:

  Alt1: Clarifications / new requirements without any new dependencies to
MIP.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  --

  AAAH

  - Or, require that, if the home realm has multiple AAA servers to which
the
  same user can be routed to, then there MUST be a synchronization mechanism
  between the AAAH servers. However, the specific synchronization mechanism
is
  beyond the scope of this spec.

   AAAF
  - How to map HA IP address to HA FQDN is still open. Reverse DNS look up
is
  not at all a straightforward solution for this...

  Alt 2: New dependencies to MIP, by requiring the usage of the GNAIE draft.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  -

  AAAH
  - Require that the MN support the GNAIE draft, updated to include the
  definition of a AAAH NAI.  When sending a MIP RegReq, this AAAH NAI would
be
  included to guarantee that a registered user always ends up in the same
  initial AAAH.

  AAAF

  There was a very clear and strong consensus that alternative 2 would be by
  far the best solution. However, this means more work and dependencies to
the
  MIP working group and the goal is set to have the Diameter MIPv4 appl.
draft
  in working group last call by the April 2nd. Looking at the GNAIE draft, I
  done see that much work needs to be done to make it fulfill our needs, so
to
  me it could easily be done in time, but the big question is how quickly
  could it be pushed through the MIP working group and go to last call?  I
  would really need to get your opinion on this asap., so I know if I'm
asking
  for the impossible or not :).

  Best Regards,

  Tony