Subject: [Pana] NEW: [issue83] Device-Id and EP-Device-Id format

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:27:09 +0300

New submission from Dan Forsberg <[email-masked]>:

From Yoshihiro Ohba:
--------------------
The current Device-Id and EP-Device-Id AVP payload format is as
follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |           Data...                             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Where the Type field can contain:

            RESERVED                          0
            IPV4_ADDRESS                      1
            IPV6_ADDRESS                      2
            L2_ADDRESS                        3

I think it might be better to use the Diameter Address type format for
Device-Id and EP-Device-Id AVPs instead of the current format.

The Diameter Address type is defined in RFC3588 as:

   Address
      The Address format is derived from the OctetString AVP Base
      Format.  It is a discriminated union, representing, for example a
      32-bit (IPv4) [IPV4] or 128-bit (IPv6) [IPV6] address, most
      significant octet first.  The first two octets of the Address
      AVP represents the AddressType, which contains an Address Family
      defined in [IANAADFAM].  The AddressType is used to discriminate
      the content and format of the remaining octets.
                                                                                
Justification: It defines not only IPv4 and IPv6 address families but
also many L2 address families.  I think using L2_ADDRESS in the
currnet definition is too generic and might have ambiguity in an
environment where multiple L2 types can co-exist in a single IP
subnet.  On the other hand, since the address family also covers
higher-layer address types such as domain name, PANA must use only L2
or L3 address families.

----------
category: Technical
document: draft-ietf-pana-pana-xx.txt
messages: 263
nosy: dforsber
priority: Must Fix
status: Text Proposed
title: Device-Id and EP-Device-Id format
__________________________________________________
PANA Issues <[email-masked]>
<http://danforsberg.info:8080/pana-issues/issue83>
__________________________________________________
ڝ���X��X����j'�~����i����
bz���j)fj��b��?���

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:49:13 +0300

I agree on this. If I remember correct the Diameter spec wasn't this clear when we made a decision on this.
- Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of ext
> [email-masked]
> Sent: 27 April, 2004 08:27
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Pana] NEW: [issue83] Device-Id and EP-Device-Id format
> 
> 
>       |     Type      |           Data...                     
>         |
> =jz~
=�ڙ���x%��Ojv�z��m��?�0�'�~���f��f��X��)ߣ�Z�

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:49:13 +0300