Re: [Mipshop] Comments on draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-05.txt

[Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>]

Hidetoshi Yokota wrote:

>>>  >>    The encapsulation type for these user packets SHOULD follow that used
>>>  >>    in the tunnel between the LMA and MAG (e.g., IPv6-in-IPv6 [RFC5213]
>>>  >>    or GRE [GREKEY]).
>>>  >
>>>  > I guess you need to mention UDP encapsulation too, in case an UDP tunnel
>>>  > is setup between the PMAG and the NMAG.
>>>
>>> The above paragraph was revised as follows:
>>>
>>>    The encapsulation type for these user packets SHOULD follow that used
>>>    in the tunnel between the LMA and MAG (IPv6-in-IPv6, IPv6-in-IPv4,
>>>    IPv6-in-IPv4-UDP, IPv6-in-IPv4-UDP-TLV as specified in [RFC5213], GRE
>>>    as specified in [GREKEY] or any new method defined in the future).
>> Ok, but TLV is specified in [GREKEY], not in RFC 5213.
> 
> You mean "draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-13.txt" [IPv4PMIPv6]? The
> references are modified as such.

No, the TLV header and the encapsulation with the TLV header is defined 
in draft-ietf-netlmm-grekey-option-09.txt. 
draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support just refers to the GRE key draft 
for the TLV encapsulation.

>>>  >> 6.2.3.  IPv4 Address Option
>>>  >>
>>>  >>    As described in Section 4.3, if the MN is IPv4-only mode or dual-
>>>  >>    stack mode, the MN requires IPv4 home address (IPv4-MN-HoA).  This
>>>  >>    option has alignment requirement of 4n.
>>>  >>
>>>  >>       0                   1                   2                   3
>>>  >>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>>  >>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>  >>      | Option-Type   | Option-Length |  Option-Code  |    Reserved   |
>>>  >>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>  >>      |                      IPv4 Address                             |
>>>  >>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>  >>
>>>  >>    Option-Type    TBD3
>>>  >>
>>>  >>    Option-Length  6
>>>  >>
>>>  >>    Option-Code
>>>  >>
>>>  >>                   0  Reserved
>>>  >>
>>>  >>                   1  IPv4-MN-HoA
>>>  >
>>>  > It looks like you don't need a "Option-Code" field here. This options
>>>  > seems to be only for carrying the MN's IPv4 address. There is no 
>>> other use.
>>>  >
>>>  > BTW, can't we re-use the IPv4 Home Address Option that we already have?
>>>  > See section 3.1.1 of RFC 5555.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your input. We should reuse this option. Section 6.2.3 was
>>> moved to 6.2.7 without defining a new option. Section 8 (IANA
>>> Considerations) was revised accordingly.
>> On second thoughts lets not re-use the IPv4 Home Address Option from RFC
>> 5555. I heard from Sri, that we might have to define a new option for
>> carrying the IPv4 address of the mobile node in
>> draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6-ipv4-support-13.txt. I think we should that option.
> 
> It seems that -13.txt hasn't had that option, yet, but our latest
> document refers to it hoping that the above reference will be defined in
> the future...

Version 14 will have the new option for the IPv4 home address.

Vijay