Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] WGLastCall-(draft-ietf-mobileip-reg-tunnel-03.txt)

From: Annika Jonsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:58:28 +0200

At 10:23 2000-10-26 -0700, Gopal Dommety wrote:

>>>Ch 1.
>>>+ Decision power at MN: regional or home registration possible
>>>? Is it always good to let the MN deicde what kind of registration to
>>>use?
>>>? What are the benefits in giving the MN the right to decide?
>>>
>>>- Different registration types makes the protocol more complex
>>>  - Changes to std RFC2002 MN
>>>  - Changes to FAs
>>>
>>
>>It has nothing to do with benefits. As I see it it is a _necessity_ for the
>>MN to know who will process the registration, the HA or an FA, because it
>>needs to know what security association to use (I feel I am repeating
>>myself;-). It is possible that it could be solved by having the MN add both
>>the home and the visited authentication and both the home and the visited
>
>You need not do this (adding two authentications) . Because, if you knew to
> send a reg registration, then the
>mobile knows which security association and reply to use, and the network
can
>validate that. May be I am missing something.
>
>Since you are saying it (the decision to use new messages) has nothing to
do with benifits, if
>what you said above is not true, then we should use the extension method.
>

Hi Gopal,

you missunderstood me. I was answering Toms question, and what I meant is:
it is not a "benefit" that the MN decides wich kind of registration it is,
it is necessary (which you agree on). To the question of whether the MN
should indicate this decision with message types or extensions, I still
think it is a great "benefit" that this is done with message types (see my
other comments to Tom).

/Annika

>Thanks
>-Gopal