Hi Ahmad, All, The Binding revocation draft does not mention revocation related to NEMO. If used as is, the BRI will revoke the binding between the MR's HoA and CoA. I think it's woth adding another level of revocation: revocation of Mobile Network Prefixes. A HA may decide to stop forwarding data to the CoA for certain MNPs and BR could be used for that. Here is a proposed text for a new section: "In case of NEMO protocol, the HA follows the same procedure as MIPv6 if the goal is to revoke the binding between the Mobile Router's HoA and CoA. It is also possible to have finer granularity of revocation targeting the Mobile Network Prefixes assigned to the Mobile Router. In this case, the HA sends a BRI message including one or more MNP options with the A bit set and the Revocation Trigger set to a proper value, e.g. Administrative Reasons. When receiving this BRI, the MR deletes the MNP(s) from the Prefix Information field in the Binding Update List and responds with a BRA message. The BRA MUST includeFrom mext-bounces at ietf.org Mon Dec 1 12:46:04 2008 Return-Path: <mext-bounces at ietf.org> X-Original-To: mext-archive at optimus.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-mext-archive at core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DC83A69AF; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:46:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: mext at core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mext at core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F8E3A69AF for <mext at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:46:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.718 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.881, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-C74foroSXV for <mext at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:46:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D01E3A6937 for <mext at ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:46:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB1Kjrdo018530; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:45:58 -0600 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:45:53 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:45:51 -0500 Message-ID: <D373F8710ACBA6419BF0B7A5177691CC057F8E25 at ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Index: AclT9cv5JA+1h7g/RR26VTnK4EnOsA=From: "Desire Oulai" <desire.oulai at ericsson.com> To: <mext at ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2008 20:45:53.0671 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD81F970:01C953F5] Subject: [MEXT] (no subject) X-BeenThere: mext at ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile IPv6 EXTensions WG <mext.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mext> List-Post: <mailto:mext at ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:mext-request at ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext>, <mailto:mext-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==============59185119==" Sender: mext-bounces at ietf.org Errors-To: mext-bounces at ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Hi Ahmad, All,
The Binding revocation draft does not mention revocation related to NEMO. If used as is, the BRI will revoke the binding between the MR's HoA and CoA. I think it's woth adding another level of revocation: revocation of Mobile Network Prefixes. A HA may decide to stop forwarding data to the CoA for certain MNPs and BR could be used for that. Here is a proposed text for a new section:
"In case of NEMO protocol, the HA follows the same procedure as MIPv6 if the goal is to revoke the binding between the Mobile Router's HoA and CoA. It is also possible to have finer granularity of revocation targeting the Mobile Network Prefixes assigned to the Mobile Router. In this case, the HA sends a BRI message including one or more MNP options with the A bit set and the Revocation Trigger set to a proper value, e.g. Administrative Reasons. When receiving this BRI, the MR deletes the MNP(s) from the Prefix Information field in the Binding Update List and responds with a BRA message. The BRA MUST include the MNP(s) contained in the BRI."
Also, Mobile network Prefix should be addes as valid option in section "6.2. Binding Revocation Acknowledgement Message".
BR
Desire
_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext