RE: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-ERR Type
"Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com> Tue, 23 May 2006 18:51 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fibyg-0000J5-5X; Tue, 23 May 2006 14:51:34 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FibyK-0000AM-Bk for nemo@ietf.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 14:51:12 -0400
Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FibyH-000569-Ir for nemo@ietf.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 14:51:12 -0400
Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id k4NIp44r013532 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 23 May 2006 11:51:05 -0700
Received: from NAEXBR03.na.qualcomm.com (naexbr03.qualcomm.com [129.46.134.172]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id k4NIp361009741; Tue, 23 May 2006 11:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAEX06.na.qualcomm.com ([129.46.135.160]) by NAEXBR03.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 23 May 2006 11:51:02 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-ERR Type
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 11:51:02 -0700
Message-ID: <2EBB8025B6D1BA41B567DB32C1D8DB8488303E@NAEX06.na.qualcomm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-ERR Type
Thread-Index: AcZ+TmZbI5CNOFnBQsGlaC6uWf1UowAS1nBA
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 May 2006 18:51:02.0909 (UTC) FILETIME=[D703E2D0:01C67E99]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88
Cc: ml-nemo WG <nemo@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nemo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
I stand corrected - Henrik's suggestions makes perfect sense to me. Thanks, Vidya > -----Original Message----- > From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:henrik@levkowetz.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:20 AM > To: Narayanan, Vidya > Cc: ml-nemo WG > Subject: Re: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-ERR Type > > Hi, > > I'd strongly suggest that you *don't* code in any specific > extension number - that will just make for more trouble up > the line. For experimental and test deployment, you should > instead use the experimental type numbers (and if needed > message number) defined by RFC 4064, and listed on > http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers > - one reason they were added were previous instances of > collisions between IANA-assigned numbers and 'self-assigned' > numbers such as > 45/46 below, and many man-hours of work spent disentangling > such collisions. > > Regards, > > Henrik > > on 2006-05-19 20:05 Narayanan, Vidya said the following: > > Sounds good to me. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu@motorola.com] > >> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 9:51 AM > >> To: ml-nemo WG > >> Subject: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-ERR Type > >> > >> I've been pointed that there seems to be a potential conflict on > >> NEMOv4 Mobile Network Extension Type and FA-Err Type. > >> > >> NEMOv4 uses a new Type (to be assigned by IANA) in Mobile Network > >> Extension. We suggested in the draft that it be 45. > >> > >> FA-ERR draft-ietf-mip4-faerr-02.txt uses Type 45 for FA Error > >> Extension (already assigned by IANA). The draft does not > specify 45, > >> just says TBA by IANA. IANA seems to have assigned it, see > >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobileip-numbers. > >> > >> draft-ietf-mobileip-gen-key-01.txt implemented in dynamics > >> 0.8.1 uses 45 too, but I think this can be ignored, > because I think > >> this work has been evolved into draft-rfc3012bis which > uses Type 24. > >> > >> To solve the issue between NEMOv4 and FA-ERR I suggest that we use > >> Type > >> 46 - and not 45 - in NEMOv4 implementation, until IANA > assigns a Type > >> for NEMOv4 Mobile Network Extension. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> > > > > >
- [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-E… Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and … Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and … Vijay Devarapalli
- RE: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and … Tsirtsis, George
- Re: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and … Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and … Henrik Levkowetz
- RE: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and … Narayanan, Vidya