Re: [Gen-art] [tram] GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08

[Jonathan Lennox <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 9, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


On 9 Sep 2016, at 4:33, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

Hi Tiru,
On 09/07/2016 10:50 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:
[TR] I propose the following text to avoid the confusion:
If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its
time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation in case of no IP address
change, it will send a
Refresh Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766] and MUST NOT
include a MOBILITY-TICKET attribute. If the client wants to retain
the existing allocation in case of IP address change, it will include the
MOBILITY-TICKET attribute received in the Allocate Success response
in the Refresh Request.
I have no issues with this new text. Please check with Pete if it resolves
his concerns.

Wait, now I'm even more confused. The second sentence says that you are allowed to include the MOBILITY-TICKET attribute in a Refresh Request if you want to retain the allocation, even though the first sentence says you MUST NOT. Is this because the Refresh Request with the MOBILITY-TICKET attribute will only be rejected if the IP address is the same? If so, perhaps this is what you meant:

If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its
time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation, it sends a Refresh
Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766]. If IP address of
the client has changed and the client wants to retain the existing
allocation, the client includes the MOBILITY-TICKET attribute
received in the Allocate Success response in the Refresh Request. If
there has been no IP address change, the client MUST NOT include a
MOBILITY-TICKET attribute, as this will be rejected by the server
and the client would need to retransmit the Refresh Request.


If that's not what you meant, you should probably clarify.

To be precise, “IP address” here should be “IP address or source port”, right?  One case I’m thinking of is where a client moved to a new private IP address, but is still behind the same CGN and so has the same external IP address.