Subject: RE: RE: [Mip6] WGLC: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:19:56 -0500

Hi Kilian,

Please see inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kilian Weniger [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:00 AM
> To: Heejin Jang; Chowdhury, Kuntal
> Cc: [email-masked]; Basavaraj Patil
> Subject: RE: RE: [Mip6] WGLC:
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02
> 
> Hi Kuntal, Heejin,
> 
> I have another comments wrt
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02
> and draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-02.txt: it seems service-based HA address
> assignment is currently not supported. What I mean is, for instance,
> that in case the MN wants to use DS-MIPv6 HA service, the network is
> able to allocate a different HA to the MN than in case the MN wants to
> use MIPv6 (RFC3775) HA service.
> 
[KC>] The Home Network Identifier (FQDN) in OPTION_MIP6-HNID can be used
to indicate the specific service the MN is requesting the HA information
for. Do we have to do anything else in the HIOPT I-D? May be this can be
explicitly mentioned.

> I heard at least one operator requesting such feature (and note that
> this is in principle possible with the HA discovery/assignment
> mechanisms defined in the split scenario bootstrapping draft). A
simple
> way to support this in the integrated scenario would be to add
something
> like a "type of requested HA service" field in the Home Network
> Identifier Option of the DHCP information request sent by the MN. The
> new field would encode the type of service, e.g., 0=MIPv6, 1=DS-MIPv6,
> 2=NEMO,...). Similarly, the Home Network Information Sub-option could
> include a "type of HA service" field to inform the MN about the type
of
> service supported by the HA offered in this option. However, since the
> AAAH wouldn't know the HA service requested by the MN, AAAH would need
> to send at least one HA address per supported service to the NAS.
> 
[KC>] Alternatively, we can encode the Home Network Identifier (FQDN) as
ha.dsmip6.domain, ha.mip6.domain. This is possible with the current
HIOPT I-D, no? From the AAAH perspective, it (AAAH) needs to send the HA
address - Service pair. The service can be indicated by the FQDN AVP. We
have the following AVPs in draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-03.txt:

                                [ MIP6-Home-Agent-Address ]
                                [ MIP6-Home-Agent-FQDN ]

Perhaps we can group them under a new AVP for service, e.g.
MIP6-Home-Agent-Info AVP. For RADIUS we can perhaps link the MIP6-HA
Attribute and MIP6-HA-FQDN Attribute.

> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Kilian
> 
> 
> Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH
> 63225 Langen, Hessen, Germany
> Reg: AG Offenbach (Hessen) HRB 33974
> Managing Director: Thomas Micke
> 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Jouni Korhonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:54:46 +0200

Hi Kilian,

[snip]

>> include a "type of HA service" field to inform the MN about the type

Good point imho.

>                                 [ MIP6-Home-Agent-Address ]

Using different FQDNs under the same operator domain for differentiating
between types of service nodes is already practised in some 'relevant' 
SDOs. In that sense I think it could be a good approach. Dime's I-D 
draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated allows a NAS to give hints already to 
the AAAH using AVPs mentioned above and since we are about to revise the 
Dime I-D this part could be clarified further.

> Attribute and MIP6-HA-FQDN Attribute.

There was also some other SDO asking for more generic 'ASP info' AVP 
e.g. for local HA assignment. MAybe these could be combined. IMHO this 
discussion should be brought to Dime as well.

Cheers,
	Jouni

---

From: "Kilian Weniger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:55:18 +0100

Hi Kuntal, Jouni, 

yes, encoding the service in the Home Network Identifier field would
also be possible (probably with changes to [HIOPT]). However, this has
the danger of overloading the semantics, since this would change the
network identifier to something like a "network+service" identifier. And
don't we need to standardize a format then, since the format for
encoding the service into the FQDN must be understood by the MSA *and
all ASPs*, right? 

Cheers,

Kilian

> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Mittwoch, 28. Februar 2007 10:55
> To: Kilian Weniger
> Cc: Chowdhury, Kuntal; Heejin Jang; [email-masked]; Basavaraj Patil
> Subject: Re: [Mip6] WGLC: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02
> 
> Hi Kilian,
> 
> 
> [snip]
>