Re: [Seamoby] DoCoMo Implementation Issues with CTP

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Soliman Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com>
To: "Raghu" <dendukuri@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] DoCoMo Implementation Issues with CTP

> 
>  > > Well, CTAR includes MN's IP(v4,v6) addresses. So does
>  > > PCTD. So, nAR can still match the contexts. Since the token
>  > > does not include PAR's address, verification can still be
>  > > done.
>  > > 
>  > I think I didnot make my point clear.
>  > MN is claiming that it came from one pAR IP Address(IPV6),
>  > but the nAR has a PCTD that says pAR IP is different(IPv4),
>  > How can nAR verify the Token without matching the pAR IP ?
> 
> => Just out of curiosity, why do you expect the protocol
> to function in this scenario? If I understand you correctly
> the MN is moving from a v6 AR to a v4 only one. Even if 
> CT worked in this scenario, many other things will break.
> Is there a requirement for CT to work here ?
> 
MN is moving from pAR(v6 & v4) to nAR(v6 & v4).
According to Rajeev's previous mail, only one IP should be used,
either v6 or v4, for AR. In this case I was asking how the
funtionality should be with the above question.

I am expecting nothing to break in CTP when MN
moves from v6 to v4 only AR. 
Can you please provide some examples that break.

regards,
Raghu

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby