Subject: [netlmm] Unverifiable identity

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:15:43 -0800

Hi,

In section 5.3.1, we have the following text

>    7.   If the local mobility anchor cannot identify the mobile node
>         based on the identifier present in the Mobile Node Identifier
>         option [RFC-4283] of Proxy Binding Update request, it MUST
>         reject the request and send a Proxy Binding Acknowledgement
>         message with Status field set to 133 (Not local mobility anchor
>         for this mobile node).

In the context of MIPv6, I have always used status 133, when the
mobile node sends a de-registration BU to the home agent which
does not have a binding cache entry for the mobile node. Then the
home agent responds with status '133'. RFC 3775 says

>    o  If the receiving node has no entry marked as a home registration
>       in its Binding Cache for this mobile node, then this node MUST
>       reject the Binding Update and SHOULD return a Binding
>       Acknowledgement to the mobile node, in which the Status field is
>       set to 133 (not home agent for this mobile node).

And the above is the only time status '133' is used.

In PMIPv6, what we have is that the LMA is not able to identify
the mobile node based on the identity provided by the mobile node.
I wonder if we should define a new status value instead of using
'133'.

This is not urgent, can be handled the next time the draft is
revised.

Vijay

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:22:56 -0800 (PST)

I thought about this ... just decided to use 133, instead of a new
code, as clearly the purpose is the same. Just that the sender is
an enhanced PMIP capable HA, i.e. LMA. In status code section, I
did put this code and provided the definition.

Sri

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:34:04 -0800

> did put this code and provided the definition.

But this would amount to re-defining the status value '133'
from what is defined in RFC 3775. Perhaps it would be cleaner
to define a new value.

Vijay