Issues regarding RFC - 4068

Dear All,

This is Javier Martín for UPC (www.upc.edu). We are working
on an
implementation of the Fast Handovers protocols and we have
three questions
regarding RFC 4068:

1- Section RFC 4068 – 6.4.1 it is specified: "IPv6
Address:  The IP address for the unit defined by
the Type field."

But our understanding is that you are referring to the field
Option-code instead of the Type field.


2- According to the RFC 4068 – 6.1.1 the New Access Point
Link-Layer Address could be set to 0 if no
other new access point is known.

Our understanding is that it can be only referred to the
field LLA, the remaining fields , type,
length and option-code will have the values previously
explained in section 6.4.3.


3- Section 6.4.3, defines field Length as “The size of this
option in 8 octets including the Type,
Option-Code, and Length fields”.

After analyzing this specification we have reached to the
conclusion that the size of the LLA field
must be included so in case of having more than one New
Access Point Link-Layer Address there would
be no way of knowing how many Link-Layer Address would be
included in this option.


Could you please take a look at these questions and let me
know something about this.

Many thanks in advance.

Best Regards,

Javier Martín


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

Hello Javier,

> Dear All,
> 
> This is Javier Martín for UPC (www.upc.edu). We are
working on an
> implementation of the Fast Handovers protocols and we
have three questions

Great!

> regarding RFC 4068:
> 
> 1- Section RFC 4068 ˆ 6.4.1 it is specified:
"IPv6 Address:  The IP address
> for the unit defined by
> the Type field."
> 
> But our understanding is that you are referring to the
field Option-code
> instead of the Type field.

Agree. I have entered in the issue tracker the new text.

> 
> 
> 2- According to the RFC 4068 ˆ 6.1.1 the New Access
Point Link-Layer Address
> could be set to 0 if no
> other new access point is known.
> 
> Our understanding is that it can be only referred to
the field LLA, the
> remaining fields , type,
> length and option-code will have the values previously
explained in section
> 6.4.3.

I assume you mean the text in 6.1.1 should refer to text in
6.4.3. I agree
it clarifies better.

> 
> 
> 3- Section 6.4.3, defines field Length as „The size
of this option in 8 octets
> including the Type,
> Option-Code, and Length fields‰.
> 
> After analyzing this specification we have reached to
the conclusion that the
> size of the LLA field
> must be included so in case of having more than one New
Access Point
> Link-Layer Address there would
> be no way of knowing how many Link-Layer Address would
be included in this
> option.

I didn't quite follow this.. The Length field includes the
size of the
entire option. 
Also, could you give examples where more than one LLA needs
to be present?
(Option-code in 6.4.3 is specific to each LLA, not multiple
LLAs).


Thanks,

-Rajeev

> 
> 
> Could you please take a look at these questions and let
me know something
> about this.
> 
> Many thanks in advance.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Javier Martín
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshopietf.org
> https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshopietf.org
https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop