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

["Vijay Devarapalli" <vijay at wichorus.com>]

Premec, Domagoj wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
> 
> RFC 5213 mentiones the usage of alt-CoA at several places,
> for example:
> 
>       However, when there is an Alternate Care-of Address
> option present
>       in the request, this address will be not be considered as the
>       Proxy-CoA, but the address in the Alternate Care-of
> Address option
>       will be considered as the Proxy-CoA.
> 
> I thought that the scenario in mind here is the MAG with one
> control plane blade and several data plane blades, and the
> alt-CoA would contain the address of the data plane.

First of all, RFC 5213 did not extend the binding cache entry structure
to store both the control plane and data plane addresses. RFC 5213 does
not specify that the LMA should store both the source address of the PBU
and the address in the altCoA option in the binding cache. There is only
one address - the Proxy CoA, that is stored in the binding cache entry.
So trying to send the binding revocation indication message to any other
address, other than what is stored in the binding cache (Proxy CoA), may
not work. 

Secondly, the above scenario is not realistic, IMHO. The different IP
addresses for the control plane blade and the multiple data plane blades
is typically not exposed to the other network elements. Each blade
acting as a separate MAG is of course possible, but that is not relevant
to what we are talking about here.

Vijay



> 
> domagoj
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay at wichorus.com]
>> Sent: 10. listopad 2008 23:30
>> To: Ahmad Muhanna; Premec, Domagoj
>> Cc: Netlmm; mext at ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: [netlmm] FW: comment
>> ondraft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-01
>> 
>> Hi Domagoj, Ahmad,
>> 
>> In MIPv6, if the binding update is successful, the binding
>> ack is always sent to the CoA and not to the source address
>> of the BU. If the AltCoA option is used, then the binding ack
>> would go back to the address that appeared in the AltCoA option.
>> 
>> In PMIPv6, I don't believe there is a scenario where you
>> would want to use the AltCoA option. (if someone has a valid
>> scenario, please let me know).
>> 
>> netlmm-bounces at ietf.org wrote:
>>> **** 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* the AltCoA option is used, then the address that appears
>> in the AltCoA option would be stored as the proxy CoA in the
>> binding cache entry. When a binding revocation needs to be
>> sent, it would be sent to the proxy CoA in the binding cache
>> entry. For the binding revocation document, I think it is
>> sufficient to say that the revocation message is sent to the
>> Proxy CoA. It shouldn't say anything about the source address
>> of the PBU or the address in the AltCoA option. In other
>> words, the binding revocation document should not care about the use
>> of AltCoA option. 
>> 
>> Vijay
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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