Re: [Seamoby] DoCoMo Implementation Issues with CTP

Hi Raghu,

Raghu wrote:

> 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 ?
>

The intended reason for including PAR's IP address in CTAR is
to allow NAR to construct CTREQ and send it to PAR.
When PCTD takes place, there is no reason to do CTREQ.
(Also, note that you could not match contexts using PAR's IP
address since that could yield many contexts corresponding to
multiple MNs.)

The token calculation does not include PAR's address. It
only includes MN's previous address (note: when V is 10 in
CTAR, the token should include both the IP addresses).
Since the MN includes both its addresses and NAR has
contexts for both of those addresses, they can be matched.
The token calculation on NAR is also done in a similar way
as in the MN; PAR's address is not a parameter in computing
the token.

Is this better ?

> >
> > 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.
>

MN includes the PAR's address in CTAR. NAR should use that
address in the Dest field of CTREQ.
Perhaps we should state that the MN should only include the
IPv4 address of PAR (NAR).

-Rajeev

>
> 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