Subject: Re: [Monami6] Binding Unique Identifier sub-option in a BA

From: Heikki Mahkonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:00:31 +0300

Hi,

Tero Kauppinen (JO/LMF) wrote:

> Can one BA contain more than one Binding Unique Identifier sub-option 
> i.e. if the MN sends a bulk registration will this result in a 
> creation of multiple BAs?
>
> /Tero
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>
>
==> My original understanding was that there should be a bulk BA as well
as bulk BU. It seems that the draft is not clear on this issue.

However, if the bulk BA is the case in the draft I think that the status
fields in the BID option and BA option header are mixed up. What I mean
is that the status field in BA header should only state if the CoA which
was sent in the source address or ACoA option in the BU message was
registered OK or !OK. If one or more of the additional CoAs was not
registered OK then the HA should add BID option into the BA message and
use the error codes you have specified or error codes specified in RFC
3775.

This means the following cases:

1. MN receives a BA message with status 0 and no BID options. This means
that all CoA were registered successfully.

2. MN receives a BA message with status 0 and one or more BID options
with  appropriate error status code. This means that the CoA in the
source address field or ACoA option in the BU message was registered ok
but some of the additional CoAs were not. The CoAs not registered would
be the ones which have their BIDs in the BID options.

3. MN receives a BA message with status !0 and no BID options. None of
the CoAs were registered reason is specified as the status in the BA
status field. This means that the reason for not registering they CoAs
is the same for every CoA.

4. MN receives a BA message with status !0 and one or more BID options
with appropriate error status code. If the CoAs were not registered but
the reasons are not the same the BID option could carry the reasons for
each unregistered CoA. Once again if BID option is not in the BA message
it would mean that the CoA was registered.

Or something along these lines...

Best regards,

Heikki Mahkonen

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:49:10 +0900

Dear Tero and Heikki

> as bulk BU. It seems that the draft is not clear on this issue.

Yes, there is bulk BA. Sorry if the text is not clean enough.

> use the error codes you have specified or error codes specified in RFC

We've added a new status code in Section 4.3.3.
    BULK REGISTRATION FAIL (145)
       It implies that the bulk binding registration is failed.  The
       correspondent status which is defined in RFC3775 is stored in  
each
       Binding Unique Identifier sub-option.  The status value is TBD.

Can't  this solve the problem what you mentioned here?

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Heikki Mahkonen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:44:41 +0300

Hi,

Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
>       correspondent status which is defined in RFC3775 is stored in each
==> Yes, this new status code solves the problem in general case that
something fails with bulk registration. If you think it is enough for MN
to know that something went wrong with the BU message then yes. It of
course could be enough, I'm not totally sure about this being an issue.

What I was talking about is that what if MN tries to make a bulk
registration and some of the bindings work and some of the bindings do
not work. It might not be enough to know that some of the CoAs are not
bound because bulk registration failed. It could be that one or more
bindings were rejected because for instance "Insufficient resources" 130
in RFC 3775. In this case the MN might try to register these failed CoAs
with some other HA. I think that HA should have a way to signal the MN
what went wrong with individual binding (CoA) with the error codes
defined in the RFC 3775. If the MCoA draft only defines new error codes
for a BA message these cannot be used to indicate individual CoA errors
in BID sub-option. This is why I think that the error codes defined in
the RFC 3775 should also be used in the BID sub-option status field if
necessary when bulk BA message is sent with BID sub-options.

The new error code 145 BULK REGISTRATION FAILED could of course be used
to indicate that something went wrong and the reason and which CoAs
failed can be found inside the BID sub-options. What do you think?

BR,

Heikki Mahkonen