Subject: [Pana] issue59: TTL and other IP layer details

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:59:18 -0700

Here is an attempt to fix this issue.

Change:

4.1.7 Message Validity Check

   When a PANA message is received, the message is considered to be
   invalid at least when one of the following conditions are not met:

   o  Each field in the message header contains a valid value including
      sequence number, message length, message type, version number,
      flags, etc.

To:

4.1.7 Message Validity Check

   When a PANA message is received, the message is considered to be
   invalid at least when one of the following conditions are not met:

   o  The IP Hop Limit (or TTL) field has a value of 255, i.e., the
packet
      could not possibly have been forwarded by a router.

   o  Each field in the message header contains a valid value including
      sequence number, message length, message type, version number,
      flags, etc.

Insert a new section 9.1:

9.1 IP and UDP Headers

The Hop Limit (or TTL) field of the IP header MUST be set to 255. IP
destination address of a PANA-PAA-Discover message is set to a
well-known link-local multicast address (TBD). Any other PANA packet is
unicasted between the PaC and the PAA. The source and destination
addresses SHOULD be set to the addresses on the interfaces from which
the message will be sent and received, respectively.

When the PANA packet is sent in response to a request, the UDP
destination port MUST be copied from the source port of the
corresponding packet. An unsolicited PANA packet MUST set its
destination port to a well-known value (TBD). In either case, the source
port can be set to a value chosen by the sender.

Also:

4.1.2 Transport Layer Protocol

   PANA uses UDP as its transport layer protocol.  The UDP port number
   is TBD.  All messages except for PANA-PAA-Discover are always
   unicast.  PaC MUST NOT use unspecified IP address for communicating
   with PAA.

Let's remove the last statement, we don't have to state that unspecified
addressed cannot be used (it's obvious).

Alper

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

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:25:03 -0700

Hi Alper,

I have one comment at the end.  Other text looks fine.

> addressed cannot be used (it's obvious).

The last stament is for prohibiting the use of unspecified address as
a source address.  I think we do need to mention it.  How about
rewriting as:

"PaC MUST NOT use unspecified IP address as a source address for
communicating with PAA."

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:25:03 -0700

Hi Alper,

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:30:11 -0700

> "PaC MUST NOT use unspecified IP address as a source address for

I understand the protocol does not explicitly enable using unspecified
IP address any more, but I don't see why we need to say anything on
that. If we really wanted to say something, that could be "the design
used to enable using unspecified IP addresses on the PaC, but not
anymore." Other than that, now PANA is just a standard UDP application,
for which we shouldn't have to state such constraints.

Alper

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:30:11 -0700

Alper

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 07:21:21 -0700

Hi Alper,

Let me revisit issue 59 since I found some minor correction.

> the message will be sent and received, respectively.

The second sentence of the above pragraph should be replaced with:

  "When a PANA-PAA-Discover message is multicast, IP destination
  address of the message is set to a well-known link-local multicast
  address (TBD).  A PANA-PAA-Discover message MAY be unicast in some
  cases as specified in section 4.2."

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 07:21:21 -0700

Hi Alper,

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:00:03 -0700

Yoshi,

Thanks for catching this. Your update makes sense.

Alper

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 7:21 AM
> To: Alper Yegin
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Pana] issue59: TTL and other IP layer details
> 
> Hi Alper,
>

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:00:03 -0700

Yoshi,

Alper