Subject: RE: [Mip4] RFC3344biz Dynamic HoA bug ?

From: "O'Neill Alan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:03:16 -0500

Hi Charlie, Kent,

Thanks for the historical and architectural context to this.

So I can buy the argument that says that this should have nothing to do with
RFC3344bis, because MIP is not an address management protocol, until I see
that RFC3344bis includes dynamic address allocation. 

I then find the mechanisms as stated appear under specified and prone to
failure on returning home because of the omission of any indication on
correct behaviour or a stated allocation lifetime, and punting on such a key
point seems poor. I believe any attempt to suggest that the address has been
allocated with an indefinite lifetime is a bad road.

So I would minimally expect some clarification text, and some future protocol
work to produce at least one definitive mandatory to implement solution that
to me has to be based on additional MIP extensions that minimally define
address lifetime and subsequent processing on binding cancellation. Other
work could then re-document the other options that have deeper dependencies
on other wgs such as DHCP and AAA.

A more surgical approach, with a lot more pints being spilled no doubt, would
be to amputate dynamic HoA and HA allocation out of RFC3344bis (because the
later requires the former), and wrap these together with the dynamic HA
redirection work which also has a significant dynamic HoA dependency). This
ensures that all the pure MIP stuff (which doesn't do dynamic allocation) is
in RFC3344bis, and all the additional dynamic stuff is handled in another
place, where the various special HoA field formats and extensions can be
defined together whilst preserving backwards compatibility. I am happy to
provide my own time for this but doubt it is realistic.

I can also live with a concrete clarification in RFC3344bis, and/or a minimal
fix to a mechanism that some people are reporting is broken in the field. 

However, having said all that Charlie, you and others have spent years on
RFC3344bis and its parents, and I will be happy to defer to your preferences
with ongoing thanks for your effort.

Regards, Alan.

-- 
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/

---

From: "O'Neill Alan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 03:24:09 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kent
Leung
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 9:24 AM
To: Hans Sjöstrand
Cc: O'Neill Alan; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mip4] RFC3344biz Dynamic HoA bug ?

Here are my 2 cents .. :)

<snip> AWO> Fine with that.

I think since specification does not cover how address management works, it
shouldn't be required to cover what's wrong with it.

AWO> So it sounds like your saying option 3 for now wrt RFC3344, and we
define address management in another doc, along the lines of the new draft. I
am fine with that, possibly with a bit of warning text in RFC3344bis that
says it does not include address management?

To support an address management function, here are some common scenarios.

<snip>  AWO> Happy with the options.

Unfortunately, we had written our draft awhile back and didn't cover the 
return home scenario as it's not common.  For Enterprise, DHCP using existing
draft would work. Typically SPs don't need to have MNs return home.  

AWO> Understood.

We welcome inputs for
ideas such as HALR/HALG for solutions there. :)

AWO> Well we have bits of it already, and I'll submit the rest once we have a
better idea of how it fits with the new draft.

Kent

========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is 
strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact
the sender and delete all copies.
========================================================

---

From: "O'Neill Alan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 03:25:15 -0500

Hi Hans,

I certainly didn't mean to imply in any way that MIP is broken for all the
reasons you state. My comments are specifically related to the dynamic
address assignment text in RFC3344bis.

At 11:50 AM 3/29/2004 +0200, Hans Sjöstrand wrote:
>Alan,
>
>Í agree that there might in some scenarios be nive to add address 
>allocation lifetimes to Home Agent implementations, especially in the 
>cases where the home agent for some reason maintain an address pool. In 
>these scenarious it might be whise to do a extension to mobile IP to 
>perform address management. This is best started with a draft and then the 
>WG will decide if it's worthwhile work to take on.
>
>But to state saying that 3344 or even worse, Mobiel IP, is broken because 
>there are no address lifetime management specified is going to far. I 
>tried to explain that how the home agent allocates a address to the MN as 
>the MN home address is not at all a business for the Mobilr IP protocool.