Subject: RE: [Mip4] Re: RFC 3344 - Source Address of the RRQ & FHAE issues

From: "O'Neill Alan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:06:23 -0500

Of course Henrik - your absolutely right. 

I was just thinking that the extension might be more generally useful but it
is in contrast absolutely tied to NAT Traversal.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:24 PM
To: O'Neill Alan
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mip4] Re: RFC 3344 - Source Address of the RRQ & FHAE issues

Hi Alan,

Thursday 18 March 2004, O'Neill Alan wrote:
> Why don't we define the source address extension in RFC3344biz because FHAE
> needs it in the discussed corner case, and state that it may be added into
> the RREQ when the source address is not equal to the FA CoA, quoting the
FHAE
> example. You might also want to define a destination address extension as
> well for completeness.

The main reason I was thinking to not do this in rfc3344bis is that the
purpose of the revision is to take it to Draft Standard, and we definitely
can forget about that with this addition.

> A short additional doc that can later wrap into NAT Trav can then build on
> this and define the additional extensions for src and dest ports (and dest
IP
> if not included in RFC3344biz).

Yes.  But don't you think the whole thing can be written up standalone as an
addition to NAT traversal - after all it's with NAT traversal it becomes 
interesting.  As long as you don't add any NAT traversal extension, 3344bis
is fine as is without this, no?

	Henrik

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/