Subject: [DMM] Implementations of RFC 4285

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:53:00 +1100

Hi all,

I was discussing this with Brian off-line and thought the list might know
more. Does anyone know of RFC 4285 implementations?

The reason I ask is that it seems we have a conflict in an error code
(144) interpretation between RFCs 5555 and 4285. Obviously 5555 shouldn't
have used error code 144 for that purpose but it slipped passed us all it
seems. So, it would be good to know if there are any 4285 implementations
out there to see if there is a problem already in practice between the two
RFCs.

Thanks,
Hesham

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:17:14 +0000

Hi Hesham,

Yes. We do have implementations and field deployments based on 4285. Its
supported on number of platforms supporting mobile routers/home agent and
also a variant used between MAG and LMA.

Regards
Sri

On 1/23/13 5:53 AM, "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>dmm mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:47:03 +1100

Thanks Sri, 

Do you implement error code 144? Has there been any issues with your RFC
5555 implementation (if you have an implementation of course)?

Hesham 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, 28 January 2013 7:17 PM
To: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Implementations of RFC 4285

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:42:20 -0600

Sorry to get into this conversation.

My understanding was that RFC 4285 was developed for use in WiMAX and WiMAX
did have MIPv6 in its plans and this type of security fitted WiMAX very
well.

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:49:25 +0000

No, we don't have support for RFC5555 on our mobile router; Probably this
code is relevant only on the receiver end. On the HA side, on one of the
platforms there seems to be support for both. I have to check if this code
if tunnel negotiation is implemented or not, and if the implementation is
sending 144 for both the error cases.

You may also want to check with Romain Kuntz, who did the open source
DSMIP implementation. With Ryuju as well for Toyota ITC.

We need to update RFC5555. There goes the perfect number Hesham :)

Regards
Sri