Subject: Re: [Mip4] draft-mip4-gre-key-extension-00.txt

From: "Kent Leung (kleung)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:21:51 -0800

For folks who did not attend the WG session, my last email did not have
any context.  I was raising the backwards compatibility issue with the G
bit and referring to the text in the current draft which needs to be
updated.

Another item that came up was the use of short format.  George mentioned
that the preferred method is using the long extension format instead of
the TLV  format.  

A few other items not mentioned during the session:

1)      Clarify the FA/HA operation when T bit (reverse tunnel) is set
or not set in RRQ.  This also means the behavior for the combination and
permutation of settings for G bit, T bit, and extension
presence/absence.  

2)      What's the impact on Registration Revocation (RFC 3543)?  If
Home Address can overlap, then the GRE extension should be included in
Registration Revocation message.

Kent

From: Kent Leung (kleung) 
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: draft-mip4-gre-key-extension-00.txt

This is not backwards compatible with RFC 3344 which supports GRE
tunneling, which is established by setting the G bit w/o GRE Key
Extension.

   "If the HA receives a Registration Request with the 'G' bit set but
   without the GRE Key Extension, it SHALL send an RRP with code 'Poorly
   Formed Request (0xY2)'."

Kent