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

["Premec, Domagoj" <domagoj.premec at siemens.com>]

Brian,

> If some new draft needs the 
> original source address saved, then it should specify it.  
> Maybe that's what you meant and I mis-understood?

Yes, that was my point. The original question in this thread was "where is the Binding revocation sent to if the PBU contained alt-CoA", and one option would be to specify in the Binding revocation draft that the alt-CoA must be saved in the BCE.

domagoj

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Haley [mailto:brian.haley at hp.com] 
> Sent: 20. listopad 2008 19:53
> To: Premec, Domagoj
> Cc: Alper Yegin; Netlmm; mext at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] [MEXT] Alt-CoA and PMIP6 (was RE: 
> FW:comment ondraft-ietf-mext-binding-revocation-01)
> 
> Premec, Domagoj wrote:
> > I agree with others here that the source IP of the BU is 
> available during the BU/Back transaction processing and once 
> the transaction is completed,  the source IP of the BU is 
> gone. IMO if we want the source IP of the BU to be saved in 
> the BCE, this must be specified in some RFC.
> 
> I agree that we don't need the source address once we send 
> the BAck, just the CoA, which is usually the source address.  
> But I don't think we need to specify if the address is saved 
> in the conceptual data structure mentioned in 3775, 
> implementations are free to store additional information in a 
> BCE if they wish, and most do.  If some new draft needs the 
> original source address saved, then it should specify it.  
> Maybe that's what you meant and I mis-understood?
> 
> -Brian
> 
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext