Re: [nemo] Potential conflict on NEMOv4 Type and FA-ERR Type

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>