RE: [Dime] MIP6 NAS-HAAA issue #1

[<jouni.korhonen at teliasonera.com>]

Hi Madjid, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Madjid Nakhjiri [mailto:mnakhjiri at huawei.com] 
> Sent: 27. huhtikuuta 2007 21:51
> To: Korhonen, Jouni /TeliaSonera Finland Oyj; dime at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Dime] MIP6 NAS-HAAA issue #1
> 
> Hi Jouni,
> 
> I have no problem with the general idea of grouped AVP, only 
> a few notes regarding the construct:

Good.

> 1) calling the AVP MIP6-Info may be a bit problematic, 
> basically you are putting the entire MIP6 application info 
> into one grouped AVP? Will we then be able to define this 
> group AVP in a way that any possible AVP people come up with 
> to support MIP6 can easily be integrated in this AVP? If yes, 
> then no problem. 

Right.. if extending the MIP6-Info is desired we could define
it as:

   MIP6-Info ::= < AVP Header: xyz >
                 [ MIP6-Home-Agent-Address ]
                 [ MIP6-Home-Agent-FQDN ]
                 [ MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix ]
                 [ MIP6-Home-Address ]
                *[ AVP ]

> Right now, I can have an idea about a couple of things that 
> can be MIP6-info related AVPs and are not shown below. Just 
> call it MIP6_HA_info (leave HOA out of it, IMO) or call it 
> MIP6_ADDR_info and leave HOA in.

There is definitely a lot of stuff that could be put in.. e.g.
in a case when the NAS is co-located with MAG. I am open to
extend the coverage but I am not sure if it is in scope of the
ID.

> 2) Not debating whether or not we should send multiple HA 
> info together, The suggested construct does not show how many 
> HAs there are in the AVP. I would guess you would need 
> something to indicate that.

It is always at most one HA per grouped AVP. If more HAs
are needed, the message just needs to include multiple
grouped MIP6-Info AVPs.

> 
> Hope this helps,

Cheers,
	Jouni


> 
> Madjid
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jouni.korhonen at teliasonera.com 
> [mailto:jouni.korhonen at teliasonera.com]
> 
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:38 AM
> To: dime at ietf.org
> Subject: [Dime] MIP6 NAS-HAAA issue #1
> 
> 
> About the issue #1 presented during the Dime WG meeting. If 
> the ASP/NAS needs to send or the MSA needs to return more 
> than one HA information the current AVP formulation does not work.
> This is because we have defined AVP counts as "at most one".
> Furthermore, if we are about to allow "zero or more" AVPs we 
> need to have a way to group HA address, FQDN, home link 
> prefix etc together. For that purpose a grouped AVP would be OK.
> 
> So the question is (also related to the issue #2) whether 
> "zero or more" HAs must be supported. At least the recent 
> discussion in MIP6 list points to this direction.
> 
> Anyway, my personal opinion is that defining a grouped AVP 
> does-no-harm anyway. Below is one proposal for a grouped AVP:
> 
>   MIP6-Info ::= < AVP Header: 297 >
>                 [ MIP6-Home-Agent-Address ]
>                 [ MIP6-Home-Agent-FQDN ]
>                 [ MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix ]
>                 [ MIP6-Home-Address ]
>                 ...
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Jouni
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
DiME at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime