[Mip4] Issue 3: Diameter MIP4 Application vs. RADIUS Architecture

["Ahmad Muhanna" <amuhanna at nortel.com>]

Hi Pete,
My apologies, I almost forgot about opening this thread. However, May I
focus on one portion of your reply, specifically your proposals to
address the issue.

>  
> 
> > Two
> > questions:
> > 
> > 1. Why the MN and possibly the network configurations need 
> to change 
> > just for using Diameter MIPv4 Application in place of RADIUS.
> 
> If we have encountered deployment situations in which a 1 
> second retransmission is too fast, then we should adjust the 
> recommended minimum value of the timer.

[Ahmad]
This is a proposal for increasing the initial RRQ retransmission timer.
Please see below.

>  
> > 2. On the other hand, even if we increase the initial timer 
> a little, 
> > we still do not solve the issue, all what we do is delaying it.
> 
> If we can increase the timer so that 99% of the time the 
> registration completes (or fails) within the new timeout 
> value, then we will have the initial RRP back to the MN 
> before it retransmits (or, in the case of failure, the 
> retransmission will be really necessary).  This seems to 
> solve the issue.  I don't think we should go re-architecting 
> the MIP4 Diameter application because of a mismatched timeout value.

[Ahmad]
Ok, I think this is an important step. I think what you are trying to
say is that you agree with the analysis that the draft presented and you
are trying to propose solutions for the issue without any change to the
Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application, RFC4004. Is that a fair statement?

> 
> -Pete
> 


--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/