Re: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?

Hmm, I'm not clear with your response.

Let's assume the following scenario.

1. MR sends initial RRQ1 (time=a) to HA
2. HA sends RRP1 (time=b) with code 133
3. MR sends RRQ2 (time=b+)
4. HA sends RRP2(time=b+) => registration successful
5. After MR recovers from failure, MR sends RRQ3(time=c)
6. HA sends RRP3(time=d) with code 133
7. MR sends RRQ4(time=d+)
8. HA sends RRP4(time=d+) => reregistration successful

We would need to confirm if #6 happens properly for a specific vendor. :) But I would expect #7 should happen if code 133 is received.

Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: mip4-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mip4-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:40 PM
To: mip4@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Does MIP support RegReq authentication without having to do timekeeping?

Le 14/03/2013 20:38, Kent Leung (kleung) a écrit :
>
> It needs to have the time, even if it does second registration.
> It's not a problem it takes longer (we can send easily two messages).
> But the second message will also be refused by the HA because it still 
> has the wrong time.
>
> KL> Why is the timestamp in the 2nd RRQ wrong?

Because the computer has lost its time, because it was turned off long time (vehicle in garage for several weeks in winter time).  It now has year 1970.

Alex

>
> Kent
>
>

--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/