 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For folks who did not attend the
WG session, my last email did not have any context. I was raising the
backwards compatibility issue with the G bit and referring to the text in the
current draft which needs to be updated. Another item that came up was
the use of short format. George mentioned that the preferred method is
using the long extension format instead of the TLV format. A few other items not mentioned
during the session: 1)
Clarify the FA/HA operation
when T bit (reverse tunnel) is set or not set in RRQ. This also means the
behavior for the combination and permutation of settings for G bit, T bit, and extension
presence/absence. 2)
What’s the
impact on Registration Revocation (RFC 3543)? If Home Address can
overlap, then the GRE extension should be included in Registration Revocation
message. Kent From: Kent Leung (kleung)
This
is not backwards compatible with RFC 3344 which supports GRE tunneling, which
is established by setting the G bit w/o GRE Key Extension. “If the HA receives a Registration Request with the 'G' bit set but without the GRE Key Extension, it SHALL send an RRP with code 'Poorly Formed Request (0xY2)'.” Kent |