Templin, Fred L | 5 Oct 2011 20:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: [MEXT] RFC 6301

The survey seems to have missed IRON (RFC6179), which
along with its supporting technologies (VET, SEAL, AERO)
comprehensively addresses the mobility solution space.

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Ryuji Wakikawa
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:28 AM
> To: sarikaya <at> ieee.org
> Cc: mext <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] RFC 6301
> 
> Hi Behcet
> 
> Thanks for the message. I believe there are  plenty of 
> potential issues MEXT group can solve...
> 
> ryuji
> 
> On 2011/09/27, at 14:59, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >   Have you seen this recently issued RFC 6301? I suggest 
> taking a look at it. Good survey from way back 1991 to this 
> date, thanks to Ryuji.
> > It covers protocols like LISP and GTP (yes, GTP) and raises 
> the issue of interworking such as between Mobile IP and HIP, 
> I would add Mobile IP and SIP mobility.
(Continue reading)

Templin, Fred L | 5 Oct 2011 20:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: [MEXT] RFC 6301

Also, I think I see an errata candidate in RFC6301:

-   [Boeing]   Andrew, L., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
-              Boeing White Paper, 2006.

I suspect this should instead be:

+   [Boeing]   Dul, A., "Global IP Network Mobility using Border
+              Gateway Protocol (BGP)", Boeing White Paper, 2006.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin <at> boeing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:25 AM
> To: Ryuji Wakikawa; sarikaya <at> ieee.org
> Cc: mext <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] RFC 6301
> 
> The survey seems to have missed IRON (RFC6179), which
> along with its supporting technologies (VET, SEAL, AERO)
> comprehensively addresses the mobility solution space.
> 
> Thanks - Fred
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Ryuji Wakikawa
(Continue reading)

internet-drafts | 11 Oct 2011 10:18
Picon
Favicon

[MEXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Transport Layer Security-based Mobile IPv6 Security Framework for Mobile Node to Home Agent Communication
	Author(s)       : Jouni Korhonen
                          Basavaraj Patil
                          Hannes Tschofenig
                          Dirk Kroeselberg
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-02.txt
	Pages           : 38
	Date            : 2011-10-11

   Mobile IPv6 signaling between a mobile node and its home agent is
   secured using IPsec.  The security association between a mobile node
   and the home agent is established using IKEv1 or IKEv2.  The security
   model specified for Mobile IPv6, which relies on IKE/IPsec, requires
   interaction between the Mobile IPv6 protocol component and the IKE/
   IPsec module of the IP stack.  This document proposes an alternate
   security framework for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-Stack Mobile IPv6, which
   relies on Transport Layer Security for establishing keying material
   and other bootstrapping parameters required to protect Mobile IPv6
   signaling and data traffic between the mobile node and home agent.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-mip6-tls-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
(Continue reading)

Basavaraj.Patil | 12 Oct 2011 21:56
Picon

Re: [MEXT] draft-bajko-mext-sod-01


Hi Kent,

Its been a while since you did the review. Finally getting back to
updating the I-D and responding to your comments:

>In the last IETF meeting, I signed up to review this draft and
>provide my comments to the WG.  Some may already be discussed. 
>1)      Sect. 1: s/cellular accesses/cellular access networks/

Okay.

>2)      Sect. 1: "that would unnecessarily consume resources on the HA
>and radio resources on the access network" 

Okay.

>3)      Sect. 1: HA control is mentioned in "Furthermore, the operator
>of HA may have policies .. security is to be used".  But later "HA has
>no ability to force the MN to secure user traffic".  Clarify if SoD is
>designed to include HA control in addition to MN control. 

Correct. MIP6 signaling today is primarily MN initiated. As a result
it is straightforward for the MN to request the establishment of
security for the user plane as needed by sending a binding update
message to the HA. From the HA perspective, we only have the binding
revocation message today which can be sent to an MN. This is the only
unsolicited message that can be used by the HA to send a notification
to the MN. 
SoD is indeed designed to allow user plane security to be initiated
either by the MN or the HA.

>4)      Sect. 2: s/wifi_SSID/WiFi SSID/

Okay.

>5)      Sect. 2: Why MAC_address of the wifi network?  Generally, it's
>the WIFI SSID.  Probably better to cover general logic and not get
>into specific features. 

SSIDs can be spoofed quite easily. Of course so can MAC
addresses. However an HA/Policy store may maintain SSID->MAC address
mappings that help determining if the network to which an MN is
attached secure and this information can trigger security to be
enabled/disabled for the user plane traffic. That is the reason why
MAC address is included here.

>6)      Sect. 2: "MN has either a stored policy ~ or it may be
>provided with such information from policy stores such as ANDSF
>[23.402] or AAA server ~" There is no interface between MN and AAA
>server.  So not clear how MN is able to obtain info stored on AAA
>server.  Also, PCRF may be another policy store. 

Right.. The MN does not have an interface with the AAA server. What we
intended to say is that these policies are delivered to the MN at the
time of access authentication. But its a good point and we need to
provide more details of how the AAA provides the policies to the MN.
One example of course is the use of ANDSF in 3GPP networks. The ANDSF
can deliver policies to the MN using OMA-DM.

>7)      Sect. 2: "HA may require that the user plane traffic be
>encrypted on the MN-HA link".  No description of how this can be
>accomplished. 

We intend to reuse the binding revocation message with a different
semantic to enable this. Details about how this is done will be
included in the next rev of the I-D.

>8)      Sect. 3: 'S' bit indicates encryption for user traffic.  But
>it~s not clear how encryption can be applied?  

First of all we are getting rid of the "S" bit and instead specifying
a mobility option that enables multiple capabilities w.r.t security
for the user plane traffic. 
The mobility option will indicate whether traffic needs to be ciphered
or simply integrity protected. This is achieved by using the
applicable type of SA.

>9)      Sect. 3: What happens if MN does not encrypt after HA
>overwrites with S bit set to one? 

The HA drops the traffic. It could also send an error message to the
MN. 

>10)   Sect. 3: What happens if MN encrypt when HA does not want that?

Same as above (9).

>11)   Sect. 3: There is no description of HA triggered SoD, though HA
>control was implied in Sect. 1. 

Right. Please see response to (3) above.

>12)   Sect 4.2: What  this option is in the draft?  Location
>information can be used for many types of operation, not specific to
>SoD 

The location information can assist the policy store in the network in
determining of security for the user plane traffic is required. Hence
the option being included in the BU.

>13)   Sect. 5.: Hmm, Type value reservation needs IANA.

Yes.

>14)   Sect. 6: It~s not clear if there is no impact to the security
>model until further explanation provided on how the encryption is
>applied. 

Encryption is applied by using an IPsec SA which is of type ESP
tunneled. 

>Overall, the I-D is a good start on the idea of SoD.  It needs more
>clarification on how the S bit interact with the mechanism that
>actually provides the encryption/decryption function.  Also, how does
>SoD work when IKE/IPSec is providing the encryption/decryption.  

Thanks for your comments. Further clarifications in the next rev
should address the shortcomings. Will appreciate your feedback once we
post the new rev.

-Raj

>Kent
 
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
internet-drafts | 17 Oct 2011 20:04
Picon
Favicon

[MEXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Guidelines for firewall administrators regarding MIPv6 traffic
	Author(s)       : Suresh Krishnan
                          Niklas Steinleitner
                          Ying Qiu
                          Gabor Bajko
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-05.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2011-10-17

   This document presents some recommendations for firewall
   administrators to help them configure their existing firewalls in a
   way that allows in certain deployment scenarios the Mobile IPv6 and
   DSMIPv6 signaling and data messages to pass through.  For other
   scenarios, the support of additional mechanisms to create pinholes
   required for MIPv6 will be necessary.  This document assumes that the
   firewalls in question include some kind of stateful packet filtering
   capability.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-05.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-firewall-admin-05.txt
internet-drafts | 17 Oct 2011 20:05
Picon
Favicon

[MEXT] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Guidelines for firewall vendors regarding MIPv6 traffic
	Author(s)       : Suresh Krishnan
                          Yaron Sheffer
                          Niklas Steinleitner
                          Gabor Bajko
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-05.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2011-10-17

   This document presents some recommendations for firewall vendors to
   help them implement their firewalls in a way that allows Mobile IPv6
   and DSMIPv6 signaling and data messages to pass through.  This
   document describes how to implement stateful packet filtering
   capability for MIPv6 and DSMIPv6.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-05.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mext-firewall-vendor-05.txt
luo.wen | 18 Oct 2011 11:15
Picon

[MEXT] A request to present a draft in MEXT, IETF82


Dear Chair:

I request a slot (about 15min) to present a draft which is related to DMMduring the meeting.

For your reference, the draft 00-version can be reviewed in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-dmm-pmip-based-approach-00.

Please consider my request.

BR
LUOWEN
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
h chan | 24 Oct 2011 19:42
Favicon

[MEXT] Requirements of DMM


There were discussions on the requirements of DMM in July. 

I think the email from Sri on the thread "LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement" (which is
also attached below) has also elaborated the DMM requirements. 

Let me try to rephrase in the following:

   1.  Distributed mobility requirement: The mobility management
       functions in interconnecting networks may be distributed over a
       number of smaller networks, and the mobility support for a
       session in a mobile node may be moved from one network to another
       network to avoid unnecessarily long route as the node moves.

   2.  Dynamic mobility requirement: A network supporting a mix of
       mobile nodes some of which may be stationary for extended time
       while others may be actively mobile may optimize its resources to
       avoid unnecessary mobility support.

Comments please.

H Anthony Chan

-----Original Message-----
From: mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:23 PM
To: Seok-Joo Koh; Charles E. Perkins; mext
Cc: dino <at> cisco.com
Subject: Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement

With respect to the solutions, there are multiple approaches that are on the
table. To me, to achieve a flat distributed model, we need:

- the ability to select a mobility anchor closer to the access network where
the mobile node is attached. 3GPP Rel-10 has done quite a few enhancements
on the aspects of gateway selection. Using the parameters eNB, APN, RNC-ID,
BSC-ID, ...etc

- the ability to re-anchor a session, or create a new session on a new
anchor closer to the new attachment point

- the ability to allow the mobile node to identify the assigned IP address
properties, distinguish between an address assigned in the previous access
network, from an address assigned in the current access network, so it can
continue to use the new address for new sessions and phase out the older
address/mobility session on the previous anchor over a period of time. In
other words, enhancing the SAS rules with mobility awareness will give the
needed session re-anchoring capabilities

This approach gives me the gateway selection closer to the access network
where the mobile node is attached and the needed optimized routing path. So,
I'm trying to understand what are the expectation from the DMM efforts,
beyond this.

Sri

On 8/1/11 8:13 PM, "Sri Gundavelli" <sgundave <at> cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Charlie,
> 
> I agree, we have to look at other approaches and bring any value added
> features to MIPv6/PMIPv6 protocols that its missing today. But, I've to say,
> I'm still trying to understand the DMM problem statement and what DMM should
> translate to:
> 
> - Is it about optimized routing path ? This is very subjective and the
> requirement may vary based on the use-case. Very much depends on the placement
> of the anchor point. No solution on the table can ever solve this, unless we
> assume the target site where the CN is located, or the ISP above is providing
> some new location functions. This new location function, sure, can be a proxy
> home agent at the global internet level too, for the argument sake, providing
> direct path to the access network where the MN is currently attached. We also
> have talked some time back on the Global HAHA, as an approach of session
> re-anchoring.
> 
> - Is it about moving from a centralized one box model to more distributed
> zillion box model ? This sounds very promising on the paper. But, as we
> discussed during the DMM BOF, rolling out a zillion pizza box type box anchors
> sounds very cool. Sure, but we bring back ten-fold complexity in the form of
> building distributed charging, Legal Intercept, DPI, Inline services,
> hotlining, high-availability ...etc etc, which are now part of that one
> central anchor box. It is to be noted, we have not seen a true distributed
> service deployed in the internet today, other than DNS.  But, I agree, if this
> about building a true internet, who the heck cares about all of these
> functions, in the true spirit.
> 
> Either way, I assumed any of the new solution will be bound by the following
> parameters:
> 
> - The signaling protocol will continue to be based on MIPv6/PMIPv6 signaling
> semantics. 
> 
> - We will not introduce a new client, what is now MIP client struggling to
> make it to every variants of operating systems.
> 
> - Any client-based solution will be an extension on top of DSMIP. Any
> network-based solution will be an extension to PMIPv6
> 
> 
> 
> I hope we can discuss the solution approaches in the next meeting and bring
> new extension to MIPv6/PMIPv6 protocols.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/1/11 4:50 PM, "Seok-Joo Koh" <sjkoh <at> knu.ac.kr> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Charles,
>> 
>> I think the LISP can also be considered as a promising candidate
>> in the design of DMM solutions. Several works are being progressed
>> to use or extend the LISP for mobility support, which inlcude LISP-MN draft
>> and many research papers. Actually, I am also considering how to extend
>> the LISP scheme in the DMM perspective.
>> 
>> LISP is a network-based ID-LOC separation scheme and thus it may give some
>> advantages for effective mobility support. On the other hand, it is noted
>> that
>> the current version of LISP and LISP-MN may need to be more enhanced
>> in terms of scalability in the mobile environment. For example, one concern
>> of 
>> LISP
>> is that the LISP EIDs may not be aggregated anymore in the mobile networks,
>> since
>> each mobile node will have its own distinctive EIDs that do not conform the
>> concerned mobile domain.
>> This may decrease the scaling benefits of original LISP.
>> We may need to design a new enhanced EID structure to be used for mobile
>> environment.
>> Nontheless, it is worthwhile to consider LISP as a promisng candidate in the
>> disign of DMM, I think.
>> 
>> By the way, as I already said in this IETF DMM ad hoc meeting, the urgent
>> action item of DMM is
>> to make one or more introductory I-Ds with WG consensus, which may include
>> the problem statements and requirements for DMM, use cases/scenarios, and
>> comparison matrix, etc.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> *************************
>> Seok-Joo Koh
>> http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
>> *************************
>> 

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
Seok-Joo Koh | 25 Oct 2011 01:56
Picon

Re: [MEXT] Requirements of DMM

Anthony,

Good initiation for discussion.

As for the Distributed MM, it seems that some people are still confused with "Distributed MM" and 
"Local MM".
What is the difference between them ?
In the current sentence, it seems that the objective of DMM is "for route optimization"..
Does it include "minimization of the traffic overhead in the control and data plane ?

I think it is helpful to clarify the following issues..
- Terms (or definitions) of Distributed, Localized, Dynamic..
- Route optimization, minimization of traffic overhead, resource utilization,...

Regards,

*************************
Seok-Joo Koh
http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
*************************

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "h chan" <h.anthony.chan <at> huawei.com>
To: "mext" <mext <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:42 AM
Subject: [MEXT] Requirements of DMM

>
> There were discussions on the requirements of DMM in July.
>
> I think the email from Sri on the thread "LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement" 
> (which is also attached below) has also elaborated the DMM requirements.
>
> Let me try to rephrase in the following:
>
>   1.  Distributed mobility requirement: The mobility management
>       functions in interconnecting networks may be distributed over a
>       number of smaller networks, and the mobility support for a
>       session in a mobile node may be moved from one network to another
>       network to avoid unnecessarily long route as the node moves.
>
>   2.  Dynamic mobility requirement: A network supporting a mix of
>       mobile nodes some of which may be stationary for extended time
>       while others may be actively mobile may optimize its resources to
>       avoid unnecessary mobility support.
>
> Comments please.
>
> H Anthony Chan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mext-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:23 PM
> To: Seok-Joo Koh; Charles E. Perkins; mext
> Cc: dino <at> cisco.com
> Subject: Re: [MEXT] LISP as a solution for some part of the DMM requirement
>
> With respect to the solutions, there are multiple approaches that are on the
> table. To me, to achieve a flat distributed model, we need:
>
> - the ability to select a mobility anchor closer to the access network where
> the mobile node is attached. 3GPP Rel-10 has done quite a few enhancements
> on the aspects of gateway selection. Using the parameters eNB, APN, RNC-ID,
> BSC-ID, ...etc
>
> - the ability to re-anchor a session, or create a new session on a new
> anchor closer to the new attachment point
>
> - the ability to allow the mobile node to identify the assigned IP address
> properties, distinguish between an address assigned in the previous access
> network, from an address assigned in the current access network, so it can
> continue to use the new address for new sessions and phase out the older
> address/mobility session on the previous anchor over a period of time. In
> other words, enhancing the SAS rules with mobility awareness will give the
> needed session re-anchoring capabilities
>
> This approach gives me the gateway selection closer to the access network
> where the mobile node is attached and the needed optimized routing path. So,
> I'm trying to understand what are the expectation from the DMM efforts,
> beyond this.
>
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
> On 8/1/11 8:13 PM, "Sri Gundavelli" <sgundave <at> cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Charlie,
>>
>> I agree, we have to look at other approaches and bring any value added
>> features to MIPv6/PMIPv6 protocols that its missing today. But, I've to say,
>> I'm still trying to understand the DMM problem statement and what DMM should
>> translate to:
>>
>> - Is it about optimized routing path ? This is very subjective and the
>> requirement may vary based on the use-case. Very much depends on the placement
>> of the anchor point. No solution on the table can ever solve this, unless we
>> assume the target site where the CN is located, or the ISP above is providing
>> some new location functions. This new location function, sure, can be a proxy
>> home agent at the global internet level too, for the argument sake, providing
>> direct path to the access network where the MN is currently attached. We also
>> have talked some time back on the Global HAHA, as an approach of session
>> re-anchoring.
>>
>> - Is it about moving from a centralized one box model to more distributed
>> zillion box model ? This sounds very promising on the paper. But, as we
>> discussed during the DMM BOF, rolling out a zillion pizza box type box anchors
>> sounds very cool. Sure, but we bring back ten-fold complexity in the form of
>> building distributed charging, Legal Intercept, DPI, Inline services,
>> hotlining, high-availability ...etc etc, which are now part of that one
>> central anchor box. It is to be noted, we have not seen a true distributed
>> service deployed in the internet today, other than DNS.  But, I agree, if this
>> about building a true internet, who the heck cares about all of these
>> functions, in the true spirit.
>>
>> Either way, I assumed any of the new solution will be bound by the following
>> parameters:
>>
>> - The signaling protocol will continue to be based on MIPv6/PMIPv6 signaling
>> semantics.
>>
>> - We will not introduce a new client, what is now MIP client struggling to
>> make it to every variants of operating systems.
>>
>> - Any client-based solution will be an extension on top of DSMIP. Any
>> network-based solution will be an extension to PMIPv6
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope we can discuss the solution approaches in the next meeting and bring
>> new extension to MIPv6/PMIPv6 protocols.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Sri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/11 4:50 PM, "Seok-Joo Koh" <sjkoh <at> knu.ac.kr> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Charles,
>>>
>>> I think the LISP can also be considered as a promising candidate
>>> in the design of DMM solutions. Several works are being progressed
>>> to use or extend the LISP for mobility support, which inlcude LISP-MN draft
>>> and many research papers. Actually, I am also considering how to extend
>>> the LISP scheme in the DMM perspective.
>>>
>>> LISP is a network-based ID-LOC separation scheme and thus it may give some
>>> advantages for effective mobility support. On the other hand, it is noted
>>> that
>>> the current version of LISP and LISP-MN may need to be more enhanced
>>> in terms of scalability in the mobile environment. For example, one concern
>>> of
>>> LISP
>>> is that the LISP EIDs may not be aggregated anymore in the mobile networks,
>>> since
>>> each mobile node will have its own distinctive EIDs that do not conform the
>>> concerned mobile domain.
>>> This may decrease the scaling benefits of original LISP.
>>> We may need to design a new enhanced EID structure to be used for mobile
>>> environment.
>>> Nontheless, it is worthwhile to consider LISP as a promisng candidate in the
>>> disign of DMM, I think.
>>>
>>> By the way, as I already said in this IETF DMM ad hoc meeting, the urgent
>>> action item of DMM is
>>> to make one or more introductory I-Ds with WG consensus, which may include
>>> the problem statements and requirements for DMM, use cases/scenarios, and
>>> comparison matrix, etc.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> Seok-Joo Koh
>>> http://protocol.knu.ac.kr/
>>> *************************
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext 
yanzhiwei | 25 Oct 2011 02:45
Picon

[MEXT] New Submission Notification for draft-yan-mext-dnsmip-00.txt

Dear all.
I would like to let you know a new draft submitted: "draft-yan-mext-dnsmip-00.txt".
The draft specifies the DNS update extension to Mobile IPv6 for the named MN. 
Specifically speaking, the FQND Option defined in the RFC 4704 is included in the Mobile IPv6 BU signaling message.
The DNS update extension has been addressed in RFC 5026. The recommended mechanism from RFC 5026 is 
that the DNS update should be executed by the HA or AAA server, but not considering the MN's DNS update.
In addition, it do not describe the PTR RR update processing.
The proposed mechanism is based on RFC 4704 and covers the limitation of the DNS update of RFC 5026.
Any comments are welcome.
Zhiwei Yan
 
 
2011-10-25
yanzhiwei
 
Attachment (yanzhiwei(1).vcf): text/x-vcard, 138 bytes
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
MEXT <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

Gmane