[mobile-ip] RFC3220 and possible forward compatibility issue "Dynamic Ho

["Ahmad Muhanna"<amuhanna@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RFC3220 and possible forward compatibility issue "Dynamic Home Agent Allocation"

Hello all;

RFC3220 (RFC2002) proposes a mechanism for Dynamic Home Agent Resolution or allocation.
Sections 3.6.1.1, 3.6.1.2, and 3.8.2.2 introduces this mechanism for the following two scenarios:

MN with a co-located IP address:
i.  MN sets the destination IP address of the IP packet that contain the MN
    Registration Request to the subnet-directed broadcast.
ii. RFC3220 does not specify what IP address the Mobile Node insert in the HA
    field in the RRQ message. However, it may be understood that it is the
    same IP address. "subnet-directed broadcast" Since it does not know its HA.
iii. Home Agent listens to the subnet-directed broadcast and "255.255.255.255."
    as mentioned in the RFC3220.
iv. Every Home Agent which receives this IP packet MUST reject the RRQ with a code
    of 136 and insert its HA unicast IP address in the RRP message to the MN.
v.  After MN receives all the RRP messages from the different HAs, it chooses which HA
     to register with and then uses that HA IP address.

MN with a FA Care-Of Address:
i.  MN sets the destination IP address of the IP packet that contain the MN
    Registration Request to the FA Care-Of Address.
ii. RFC3220 specify that MN MAY use the "subnet-directed broadcast" IP address in the HA
    field in the RRQ message.
iii. RFC3220 does not specify what the FA SHOULD do when receiving an IP packet which
    contains a RRQ message with a HA field is set to the "subnet-directed broadcast".
    It is basically very wise to do so by leaving the door open for future forward compatibility.
   
    However, IF FA just uses the same concept of the MN co-located IP address,
    then FA will forward the RRQ message to the HA "subnet-directed broadcast" by
    inserting this address in the destination IP address of the IP packet containing
    the RRQ message.

iv. Home Agents listens to the subnet-directed broadcast and Broadcast
    IP address "255.255.255.255." as mentioned in the RFC3220.
v. Every Home Agent which receives this IP packet MUST reject the RRQ with a code
    of 136 and insert the HA unicast IP address in the RRP message to the MN through the
    Foreign Agent Care-Of Address.
vi.  After MN receives all the RRP messages from the different HAs, it chooses which HA
     to register with and then use that HA IP address.

Now, the only conflict I see is what mentioned in section 3.8.3.2 which reads:

Section 3.8.2.2:
"
   If the Home Agent field in the Registration Request contains a
   unicast address of this home agent, then that field MUST be copied
   into the Home Agent field of the Registration Reply.  Otherwise, the
   home agent MUST set the Home Agent field in the Registration Reply to
   its unicast address.  In this latter case, the home agent MUST reject
   the registration with a suitable code (e.g., Code 136) to prevent the
   mobile node from possibly being simultaneously registered with two or
   more home agents.
"
This section mandates that every HA rejects any RRQ message with HA
field is different than the HA unicast IP address.
This will not allow dynamic Home agent allocation using RADIUS or future
Diameter in ONE SINGLE ROUND TRIP of the initial registration.

In the spirit of resolving this issue to avoid forward compatibility problems,
I believe this text SHOULD be modified to be consistent with
what the RFC3220 is trying to propose for Home Agent dynamic allocation.

Proposed TEXT:
 Section 3.8.2.2:
"
   If the Home Agent field in the Registration Request contains a
   unicast address of this home agent, then that field MUST be copied
   into the Home Agent field of the Registration Reply.  Otherwise, the
   home agent MUST set the Home Agent field in the Registration Reply to
   its unicast address.  In this latter case and only if this IP packet was distant
   to either the subnet-directed broadcast or 255.255.255.255, the home
   agent MUST reject the registration with a suitable code (e.g., Code 136)
   to prevent the mobile node from possibly being simultaneously registered
   with two or more home agents.
"
 

Thanks for consideration.

Regards;
Ahmad Muhanna