Subject: RE: [netlmm] MN-Id overspecification

From: "Chowdhury, Kuntal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:10:32 -0400

Alper,

Even if the HNP is included in the PBU, the user identity cannot be
deterministically derived from that info. The HNP may be dynamically
assigned to the users in many systems.

The benefit of including the MN-ID (NAI) in the PMIP signaling messages
is that it provides a unique and consistent way to identify the user at
the LMA and the MAG at all times (i.e. initial attach and
re-registration).

BR,
Kuntal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:58 AM
> To: 'Ahmad Muhanna'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [netlmm] MN-Id overspecification
> 
> Ahmad,
> 
> > In case that a HNP is available at the MAG (how: out-of-scope) and
> > included in the initial P-BU, ...
> 
> ... MAG is not required to include an NAI option that carries the
> MN-identifier.
> 
> In the spec, all we need to say is "MN-Identifier MUST be included in
PBU
> when the HNP is set to 0::0/0"
> 
> 
> Alper
> 
> 
> 
> NO NAI or any other IDs related to the MN
> > should be included?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ahmad
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 7:35 AM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: [netlmm] MN-Id overspecification
> > >
> > > This issue is still hanging.
> > >
> > > So far as I understand the MN-Id is only used for performing
> > > HNP assignment in-band with PMIP6 signaling. In case HNP is
> > > already assigned, there is no need to be carrying any info
> > > that directly or indirectly points to the MN's identity.
> > >
> > > But on the other hand, MN-id is all over the spec with
> > > normative languages that suggest it be present in every message.
> > >
> > > This is an overspecification, reducing flexibility and
> > > getting in the ways of various deployment scenarios.
> > >
> > > I recommend we change the spec such that MN-id is only
> > > mandated when HNP needs to be assigned.
> > >
> > > Would there be an objection to that? Is there any technical
> > > reason to carry an identifier of the MN in every PMIP6 message?
> > >
> > >
> > > Alper
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netlmm mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> > >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

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