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

["McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann at motorola.com>]

Hi, Ahmad,

Ahmad Muhanna wrote:
> 2. The point here is not about Diameter as an AAA protocol, however,
> it is about the concept of coupling the MIPv4 control signaling to
> AAA signaling. Which many people do not think it is a good idea and
> believe that it is a deviation from RFC3344 initial MIPv4
> registration procedure. Do not you agree?    

No, I don't.  Putting the Registration Request in the AMR is a feature.
It allows the registration to happen in one round-trip.
 
> 6. Actually, we are going to publish a new revision of this draft and
> address the scenario of allocating a HA in the visited network. Have
> you looked into the difference between the RADIUS and D-MIP4
> performance in this scenario and what will happen if the MN happened
> to retransmit?    

Obviously this scenario takes longer to process the RRQ and so the
chance of hitting a retransmission is greater.
 
>> I agree that a Diameter (or RADIUS, for that matter) infrastructure
>> might take more than 1 second to respond to an AMR or an
>> Access-Request. It seems that the solution is to recommend a longer
>> timeout value for the initial retransmission.  Another solution
>> would be to allow the MN to complete its registration successfully
>> by receiving an RRP matching a previous RRQ (not just the most
>> recently retransmitted one). 
>> 
>> I don't think we should turn the MIP4 Diameter application into a
>> 2-round-trips protocol.  The goal of RFC4004 is to provide MIP
>> registration in one round-trip.
>> 

-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/