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

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:10:00 -0600

Hello,

This is a MIP6 Working group last call for the WG I-D:
"MIP6-bootstrapping for the Integrated Scenario",
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02.txt

I-D: 
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc
-02.txt

Please review and submit your comments to the authors or the mailing
list. The WGLC will expire on March 1st, 07.

-Chairs

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

---

From: "Miguel A. Diaz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:52:10 +0100

Hello,

I see that in draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02 is stated that the
DHCPv6 relay adds the OPTION_MIP6-RELAY option to the RELAY-FORWARD message
in order to inform to the DHCPv6 server about the HA to be assigned to the
MN.

I've looked for the OPTION_MIP6-RELAY option in several drafts, but I have
no success, so I guess that the OPTION_MIP6-RELAY option is not defined yet
anywhere, just it's mentioned on draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02
as theoretical option to be defined.

Is this assumption right or can someone gives me information about where the
format of such an option is defined?

Regards
Miguel

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:31:25 -0800

I have the following questions. I appologise in advance if this issues
have been discussed sine I have not followed the discussions closely.

In section 3.2.2. (Home Agent allocation in the ASP), It is not clear
what happens if the DHC server is not configured to assign local HAs to
visiting MNs.

Also, would it be possible for a mobile to ask for both visited and home
HAs? One way would be to allow two Home Network Identifier Options, one
with id-type set to 1 and another with id-type set to 0 so that the MN
can request both MSP and ASP HAs. Another way would be to define
id-type=4 "Visited and home domain" in draft-ietf-mip6-hiopt-01.txt.

Thoughts?

George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:10 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mip6] WGLC: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated
-
> dhc

---

From: "Kilian Weniger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:31:15 +0100

Hi,

please find below some comments about 
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02.

The draft is well written and easy to understand (thanks to figures and
message sequence text). However, some details and corner cases are not
addressed, which may need to be specified, e.g.:

- How does the NAS/relay map a DHCP request received from a specific MN 
  to the cached home network information previously received from AAAH 
  for this MN, so that it can include the correct home network 
  information in a received DHCP request?
- What is the conceptual data structure needed for this in the NAS/DHCP 
  relay?
- Any default value for how long NAS should cache home network 
  information received from AAA for a specific MN (i.e., when is NAS 
  allowed to delete cache entry?)? If this is specified in [MIP6-Dime] 
  or [MIP6-RADIUS] it should be mentioned and referenced. 
- What should NAS do if DHCP request with Home network identifier 
  option is received from a MN and NAS doesn't find valid home network 
  information for this MN in its cache (e.g., since the cache entry 
  has expired)?
- What should DHCP relay/server do if the MN does not include the 
  OPTION_CLIENTID in the DHCP request or if OPTION_MIP6-RELAY-Option 
  is missing in request?

The draft may need better aligned with [HIOPT]. For instance, it is not
clear to me how exactly the home network identifier option and the home 
network information option specified in [HIOPT] are allowed to be used
in draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02: 

- [HIOPT] supports home address allocation. This is not mentioned in 
  draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02. Is this forbidden or 
  allowed or out-of-scope? If allowed, when does NAS set the A-flag in 
  the home network identifier option?
- Is it allowed that multiple HA addresses are returned in the home 
  network information option?
- [HIOPT] allows that the home network identifier option includes an 
  identifier of a target network, which is different from home or 
  visited network of MN. This is not mentioned in 
  draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02. Is this allowed or 
  forbidden?
- Which HA information should the MN use if it receives, e.g., an FQDN 
  and a HA address in DHCP reply? [HIOPT] refers to section 3.6 of 
  draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-01, but this section doesn't
  exist in draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02 anymore...

Some other comments:

- It would be good to have a section, which explicitly states 
  assumptions and applicability of the protocol. This should include:
	- MSA and ASA must be co-located (i.e., integrated scenario)
	- AAA infrastructure assumed and some kind of roaming 
        relationship between ASP and MSA/ASA is required
	- MSP is either co-located with ASP or MSA or both
        (Or are other target networks allowed; see above)?
	- DHCP relay and NAS must be co-located

- At some places in the text the use of the term "MSP" is ambiguous, 
  since MSP can refer to at least home and visited network. Better 
  use "home MSP" for MSP in home network.
	- e.g., section 3.1:
  "Note that a home agent for usage
   with the mobile node might be selected in the access service
   provider's network or alternatively in the *home* mobility service
   provider's network."
	- or in section 3.2:
  "The message flows for home agent
   allocation in the ASP and the *home* MSP are illustrated below.  
	- or in section 3.2.1:
  "3.2.1.  Home Agent allocation in the *home* MSP",
  "(4)... mobile node is requesting home agent information in the 
  *home* MSP..."

- Section 3.3 currently mentions DNS-based HA address discovery method
  only, but [BOOT-SPLIT] also specifies an anycast-based HA address 
  discovery method. Either both or none should be mentioned.

- The title of draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02 can cause 
  the impression that the draft defines a complete bootstrapping  
  procedure. But draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-02 defines a 
  method for HA address assignment only. I think this is misleading. 
  Why not name the draft according to what it specifies (e.g., "HA 
  address assignment using DHCP and AAA" or "HA address assignment for 
  the integrated scenario using DHCP and AAA" instead of 
  "MIP6-bootstrapping for the integrated scenario")?

Regards,

Kilian

> Sent: Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2007 19:10
> To: [email-masked]

Panasonic R&D Center Germany GmbH
63225 Langen, Hessen, Germany
Reg: AG Offenbach (Hessen) HRB 33974
Managing Director: Thomas Micke