[MEXT] Alt-CoA and PMIP6 (was RE: [netlmm] FW: comment ondraft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-01)

["Alper Yegin" <alper.yegin at yegin.org>]

Vijay,

> 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.

That's interesting. Is there a technical reason why BA cannot be sent back
to the source address of the BU (other than not being specified so in RFC
3775)?

Mirroring the src/dst IP addresses between BU/BA appears logical, simple,
and useful. Not sure why it is not explicitly allowed in the RFC 3775.

> 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).

Sending and receiving PMIP signaling using Alt-CoA provides the ability to
separate control plane and data plane. And that's useful for relocating the
PMIP6 tunnel while keeping the PMIP6 signaling anchored on a fixed MAG
(because moving that requires re-negotiation of security-related
parameters). 

This scenario is being examined by WiMAX Forum and use of Alt-CoA appears to
fit (module some wrinkles and clarifications).

Alper






> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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