Subject: [Mip4] Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-mipadvert-opt-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:14:10 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

A late response to the poll on the list:

Overall: I support the acceptance of this document, it seems to
provide a useful mechanism that may be relevant in more complicated
foreign agent scenarios (e.g. multi-provider environment).

On the details, a few comments:

   - If possible, the duplication of agent advertisement format
     from RFC 3344 to this document should be avoided, as it
     introduces a dependency and does not make it clear is the
     format updated if the corresponding ICMP format is updated
     (although the flags field is discussed separately, but
     other changes to the format may at least theoretically
     happen :-).

     One concrete suggestion for Section 3.3:

       - Specify the extension as having exactly one agent
         advertisement (for simplicity, personal preference),
         the extension beginning with Mobility Agent IP Address.

       - Keep the extension format otherwise as-is, but
         instead of re-specifying the extension, refer to
         RFC 3344 Section 2.1.1.  Expand the current flags
         discussion to cover other fields of the advertisement
         as well.

   - An alternative would be to provide the MN with only the
     FA IP addresses, but this does not seem to work well with
     ICMP router solicitation (the router is allowed to answer
     with multicast which might confuse other MNs in the
     network).  Was this alternative considered (and rejected) ?

   - Nit: RFC 3220 references should be changed to RFC 3344 references.

Best regards,

-Sami
-- 
Sami Vaarala
Senior System Architect
Netseal  (http://www.netseal.com)

-- 
Mip4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4