Fw: [Mipshop] Possible Problem with IANA Considerations in FMIPv6 Draft (was: Re: Candidate 2 for Draft 8 for CARD
"James Kempf" <[email protected]> Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:00:03 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.seamoby |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
----- Original Message ----- From: "gabriel montenegro" <[email protected]> To: "James Kempf" <[email protected]> Cc: "Thomas Narten" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Possible Problem with IANA Considerations in FMIPv6 Draft (was: Re: [Seamoby] Candidate 2 for Draft 8 for CARD > James Kempf wrote: > > The idea was that the CARD options would be included on the FMIPv6 SolPrxyRt > > and PrxyRtAdv rather than in the CARD ICMP messages. There is some protocol > > for determining whether the AR supports this, see Section 4.4 of the CARD > > draft for how, but there is nothing in the CARD draft about piggybacking on > > ICMP messages other than these, though it was discussed (RtAdv was a > > candidate). > > Ok, piggybacking is not specified to work on anything but FMIP ICMP messages. > Section 4.4 is appropriately specific about this, but 5.1.1 is not. > > I suggest tightening the language in 5.1.1 as follows (should be possible > in AUTH48): > > OLD > > Hosts and Access Routers use the Experimental ICMP type main header > [Ke04] when CARD protocol messages cannot be conveyed via another > outgoing ICMP-type message. The MN-AR interface MUST implement and > SHOULD use ICMP for transport, with either the CARD ICMP header or > piggybacked on another ICMP message. > > NEW > > Hosts and Access Routers use the Experimental ICMP type main header > [Ke04] when CARD protocol messages cannot be conveyed via ICMP-type Fast Mobile > IPv6 [Kood03]. The MN-AR interface MUST implement and > SHOULD use the CARD ICMP Type header for transport. > If available, the MN-AR interface MAY use the ICMP-type Fast Mobile > IPv6 [Kood03] for transport (section 4.4). > > > Notice that the above does two things: > > - tighten the language about piggybacking to only that which is specified > > - specify the MUST implement more clearly. OLD text implied that one > could choose to carry CARD messages on either CARD ICMP or FMIPv6 ICMP. > But the latter is not a requirement for CARD (it's an informative reference), > so it cannot be depended upon. > > > [Hmmm... perhaps that should've been cc-ed to seamoby. Feel free to do so if > you think that's necessary.] > > -gabriel >