Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] Functionality in draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated vs. draft-ietf-mip6-radius

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:39:21 +0200

Jouni, Avi, and others,

I've been re-reading the other drafts related to draft-ietf-dime-mip6-
integrated, and I have a question which may be quite important the 
issue at hand: do you expect draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated to provide 
the same functionality/semantics as the "integrated scenario" parts 
of draft-ietf-mip6-radius?

So far, I had assumed the intent was to provide identical functionality:
perhaps using different AVP/attribute formats, but a translation
agent could perform lossless translation in either direction.

However, on further reading, it seems the current versions of
mip6-radius and dime-mip6-integrated do different things (and 
neither is a subset of the other). For example:

- The DIME draft allows sending arbitrary number of home link
  prefixes (zero or more) in both request and response messages;
  the MEXT draft allows just zero or one.

- The DIME draft allows sending either the FQDN, or IP address(es), 
  or both for a single HA (and a message can contain information 
  about more than one HA). The MEXT draft allows sending multiple
  FQDNs and/or IP addresses, but there's no way to say that 
  some FQDN and IP address(es) are for a single HA.

- The MEXT draft allows the AAA server to assign a home address
  to the MN; the DIME draft does not support this (both support 
  communicating the home link prefix, though).

- The DIME draft allows sending the "realm" associated with 
  a home agent; the MEXT draft doesn't.

- The DIME draft allows sending the IPv4 address of a MIPv6
  home agent that supports draft-ietf-mext-nemo-v4traversal;
  the MEXT draft does not.

- The MEXT draft supports DNS updates; the DIME one does not.

(BTW -- all this is about the "integrated scenario"; split scenario
is a topic for a different day...)

If these differences in functionality/semantics are intentional, and
there's no desire to allow lossless translation in either direction
(even assuming new code in the RADIUS/Diameter translation agent), 
then using identical AVP formats/numbers isn't that big deal.

So, I'm wondering whether these differences are intentional, or perhaps 
artifacts of not-totally-synchronized work in two WGs?

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:55:56 +0200

Hi Pasi, 

my intention was to align it with draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated as
much as possible. 

The reason why it is different is simple: There are folks interested to
implement draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated and hence we have pressure to
finish it asap. I will work on the alignment once
draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated is finished. 

Ciao
Hannes

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 02 December, 2008 13:39
>To: [email-masked]; 
>[email-masked]; Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - 
>FI/Espoo); [email-masked]; Korhonen, Jouni (NSN - 
>FI/Espoo); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: Functionality in draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated vs. 
>draft-ietf-mip6-radius
>
>
>Jouni, Avi, and others,
>
>I've been re-reading the other drafts related to 
>draft-ietf-dime-mip6- integrated, and I have a question which 
>may be quite important the issue at hand: do you expect 
>draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated to provide the same 
>functionality/semantics as the "integrated scenario" parts of 
>draft-ietf-mip6-radius?
>
>perhaps using different AVP/attribute formats, but a 
>translation agent could perform lossless translation in either 
>direction.
>
>(BTW -- all this is about the "integrated scenario"; split 
>scenario is a topic for a different day...)
>
>If these differences in functionality/semantics are 
>intentional, and there's no desire to allow lossless 
>translation in either direction (even assuming new code in the 
>RADIUS/Diameter translation agent), then using identical AVP 
>formats/numbers isn't that big deal.
>
>So, I'm wondering whether these differences are intentional, 
>or perhaps artifacts of not-totally-synchronized work in two WGs?
>
>Best regards,
>Pasi
>

---

From: "jouni korhonen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:14:44 +0200

> Jouni, Avi, and others,

<major-snip>

> artifacts of not-totally-synchronized work in two WGs?

Hmm.. I am not co-authoring mip6-radius, so maybe other folks know details
on above better than me. I have worked only on the dime-mip6-integrated
based
on my view of stuff, integrated-dhc and comments received from outside IETF.

Cheers,
      Jouni