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 ?

Hesham

 > 
 > > >
 > > > > Is the confusion in whether `V' bits also refer to
 > > > > PAR and NAR addresses ? If so, we should clarify that they
 > > > > refer to MN's IP addresses only, and that the router address
 > > > > must be either IPv4 or IPv6 but not both.
 > > > >
 > > > This description in the draft may clarify things, but how to
 > > > identify the IP version AR in CT messages.
 > > > I guess another V flag for AR might simply things.
 > > >
 > > 
 > > Perhaps this is not necessary. (See above)
 > >
 > I mean,
 > In CTAR Message there is pAR IP,
 > how can nAR know that there is IPv4 or IPv6 address of pAR,
 > if the V flag is only for MN IP version.
 > 
 > 
 > regards,
 > Raghu 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Seamoby mailing list
 > Seamoby@ietf.org
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
 > 

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