[MEXT] FW: [netlmm] comment ondraft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-01

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

**** Adding Mext mailing list. Also correcting the subject. Comment is
on binding revocation not GRE:) ***

Hi Domagoj,

I believe this is a valid concern. I guess either way should work, but I
believe the cleaner solution is to have some text to indicate that if
the alt-CoA included in the PBU, the revocation should be sent to the
same address the PBA is sent to. In this case the source of the PBU.

If people feels that is the best approach, we can add some clarification
to the draft.

What do you think?

Regards,
Ahmad
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Premec, Domagoj [mailto:domagoj.premec at siemens.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:59 AM
> To: Muhanna, Ahmad (RICH1:2H10)
> Cc: Netlmm
> Subject: comment on draft-ietf-netlmm-grekey-option-01
> 
> Hi Ahmad,
> 
> I have a comment on the interactions between the binding revocation 
> mechanism and the alt-CoA usage as specified in RFC 5213. According to

> the RFC 5213, the MAG is allowed to use the alt-CoA to redirect the 
> downlink traffic to an address different from the source address of 
> the PBU. In this case the Binding revocation will get sent to the 
> alt-CoA address, but I think it should actually be sent to the source 
> address of the PBU, as this is where the signalling part of the MAG is

> located. Is this is a valid concern or should we assume that the MAG 
> also accepts signalling messages at the alt-CoA?
> 
> domagoj
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext