Re: [Dime] [RFC3588bis-34] - Host-IP-Address AVP

Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com> Tue, 18 September 2012 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <glenzorn@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B426D21F87D8 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P8-nR13WTeP6 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC8921F87D5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so11429813obb.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TzrnqaUXUI6OTTbLzWbTVu8h8p/EFBsfqx4NEJGD7f0=; b=HXbAIxj3Px4rgSqMTZG+cvhZjcsOfMqGfLFFHYcL1DMIHLibFOAARzpJNkAPMTdwxS wtGugtxreTr69EH/XHLKn7CnFpu/v2YalbFX8H5eu2r3BJgb32xFVfgP2rYFC65n0dT7 hZvwqGZjoBS3CtIt3Vi5ZT6Qp2ejLn8tvU2d7FTjpRwoE5sRwNMo8PwsOYXWK8D5EEsF +cyvS6KjoxGoWHSBsKVhoMqIM7O4JP/4cqNryEbwo3X7NH6m4iWQuaY367X6egrS5YQG +Jt/fscn9gNCn+qN6OVN0lFCxv7ktiGBqwpcVJgTmUoBpNdQZ8DmsWag3P+mzUkZ/B3M BwAQ==
Received: by 10.60.7.99 with SMTP id i3mr14386579oea.86.1347967937480; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (ppp-58-11-235-161.revip2.asianet.co.th. [58.11.235.161]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jd10sm14103425obb.13.2012.09.18.04.32.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 04:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <50585BBD.6040008@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:32:13 +0700
From: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "VITON HORCAJO, Pedro (Pedro)" <pedro.viton@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <5F42DFF905CBA544A7BBB0909003E1A3148F14F7C6@FRMRSSXCHMBSC1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <50570410.9000708@gmail.com> <5F42DFF905CBA544A7BBB0909003E1A3148F14F987@FRMRSSXCHMBSC1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <5F42DFF905CBA544A7BBB0909003E1A3148F14F987@FRMRSSXCHMBSC1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [RFC3588bis-34] - Host-IP-Address AVP
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:32:18 -0000

On 09/17/2012 07:09 PM, VITON HORCAJO, Pedro (Pedro) wrote:
> Glen,
>
>   Thanks for answering.
> Maybe my original mail was too long, and I  might have not have been clear enough.
>
> Let me rephase my questions, in a shorter way:
>
> 1.- The current text for Host-IP-Address AVP indicates the value to send when transporting over SCTP.
> But which value should be sent when transporting over TCP?

I think that a TCP pseudo-connection can only have two end-points, so 
the value should probably be the IP address of the sender.  I suppose 
that it could be different, though, in some load balancing scheme: "I'm 
sending this from address 'A', but from now on I'll be using address 
'B'"; of course, the connection w/that address would need to be 
authenticated, etc.

>
> 2.- What should a Diameter implementation do when receiving the Host-IP-Address AVP?

Any thing it likes, I suppose ;-).

>
> Best Regards,
>    Pedro
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:06 PM
>>> To: VITON HORCAJO, Pedro (Pedro)
>>> Cc: dime@ietf.org; glenzorn@gmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: [Dime] [RFC3588bis-34] - Host-IP-Address AVP
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/17/2012 04:02 PM, VITON HORCAJO, Pedro (Pedro) wrote:
>>>> Hi:
>>>> After reviewing original RFC3588 and the lastest draft for
>>> 3588bis-34,
>>>> I have a couple of comments/questions related to the
>>> Host-IP-Address AVP
>>>> 1.- I don't have clear the behavior of a diameter peer
>>> when SENDING
>>>> the Host-IP-Address AVP in the CER/CEA messages, if using TCP to
>>>> transport Diameter.
>>>> In sections 5.3.1 (CER), 5.3.2(CEA) and 5.3.5
>>> (Host-IP-Address AVP),
>>>> it indicates the behavior with respect to that AVP when
>>> using SCTP or
>>>> DTLS/SCTP as transport mechanism.
>>>>      The Host-IP-Address AVP (AVP Code 257) is of type
>>> Address and is used
>>>>      to inform a Diameter peer of the sender's IP address.
>>> All source
>>>>      addresses that a Diameter node expects to use with
>>> SCTP [RFC4960] or
>>>>      DTLS/SCTP [RFC6083] MUST be advertised in the CER and
>>> CEA messages by
>>>>      including a Host-IP-Address AVP for each address.
>>>>      When Diameter is run over SCTP [RFC4960] or DTLS/SCTP
>>> [RFC6083],
>>>>      which allow connections to span multiple interfaces,
>>> hence, multiple
>>>>      IP addresses, the Capabilities-Exchange-Answer message
>>> MUST contain
>>>>      one Host-IP-Address AVP for each potential IP address
>>> that MAY be
>>>>      locally used when transmitting Diameter messages.
>>>> That might lead to think that if using TCP, that AVP
>>> might/needs not
>>>> be sent.
>>>> However, not sending it would be a contradiction with the
>>> CER/CEA ABNF
>>>> message format, that states that the Host-IP-Address AVP is a
>>>> mandatory AVP with at least 1 ocurrence :
>>>> <CER> ::= < Diameter Header: 257, REQ >
>>>>                     { Origin-Host }
>>>>                     { Origin-Realm }
>>>>                  1* { Host-IP-Address } <------------
>>>> ...
>>>> I think it would be a good idea to clarify:
>>>> A.- whether Host-IP-Address MUST/SHOULD/MAY included in CER/CEA
>>>> messages if using TCP
>>> As you point out, the command definition for the CER
>>> requires at least
>>> on instance of the AVP.  What is unclear?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>