Re: [AAA-DOCTORS] New version of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated

[<[e-mail]>]

Jouni Korhonen wrote:

> > Looking back at the emails, the following things (not related to
> > this RADIUS/Diameter topic) were still not handled in the 
> > -11 version:
> >
> > - Describing the semantics of the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix in request
> >  messages.
> 
> Would the following text in Section 4.2.4 work for you?
> 
> Old:
> 
>     The HAAA MAY act as a central entity managing prefixes for MNs.
>     In this case, the HAAA returns the prefix allocated for the MN
>     and returns it the NAS.  The NAS/ASP uses then, for example,
>     mechanisms described in
>     [I-D.ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc] to deliver the home
>     link prefix to the MN.
> 
> New:
> 
>     The HAAA MAY act as a central entity managing prefixes for MNs.
>     In this case, the HAAA returns the prefix allocated for the MN
>     and returns it the NAS.  The NAS/ASP uses then, for example,
>     mechanisms described in
>     [I-D.ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc] to deliver the home
>     link prefix to the MN. The NAS/ASP MAY propose a specific prefix
>     allocation to the HAAA by including the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
>     AVP in the request message. However, the HAAA is MAY override
>     the prefix allocation hint proposed by the NAS/AAA and return a
>     different prefix in the response message.

Both this and Lionel's slightly edited version look OK to me.

> > - If the message contains information about multiple HAs, which home
> >  agent(s) the prefix(es) in MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP(s) belong to.
> >  (One way to solve this would be to move it inside the Grouped AVP;
> >  another way would be to prohibit its use if the message contains
> >  multiple HAs; other solutions may be possible)
> 
> Actually, I have a vague recollection that independent of number of
> the HAs, there would be only one prefix. I cannot find anything to
> back up this now, though.
> 
> Thus, we could move the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix AVP inside the MIP6-
> Agent-Info AVP (in that case, we could actually consider using the
> Framed-IPv6- Prefix AVP instead of the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
> AVP). Or we could add text that says using the MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix
> AVP when there are multiple HAs does not make much sense.

I slightly prefer moving it inside the grouped AVP.

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors