DIME WG @IETF #74Jouni Korhonen

draft-ietf-dime-pmip6draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing

draft-ietf-dime-pmip6• Version -01 out recently. Mainly editorials, clarifications

and aligning with the SDOs that wish to use this I-D.• WGLC ended 21-Mar-09 with hardly any comments.. • Non-editorial changes

– Added Service-Configuration grouped AVP to carry service + LMA pairs.

– Bunch of clarifications about the use of Service-Selection AVP.– Added new text explaining the relationship between PMIP6

mobility sessions and Diameter sessions. Concerns especially LMA-HA interactions.

– Removed the application & new commands between LMA-HA. This is to allow more flexibility and alignment with intended use of this I-D.

• Question received:• Should the I-D have signaling flows?

draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing 1/2

• Version -01 out some time ago and WGLC ended 23-Feb-09.– Received several comments on the applicability of NAI

routing in general. Settled down to a general acceptance that the I-D is needed ;)

– Received a review (by Avi) after the WGLC that effectively proposes a new “algorithm” for NAI routing handling.

– Some more work is probably needed as pointed by Avi’s review.. e.g. revising the NAI decoration processing on each hop..

draft-ietf-dime-nai-routing 2/2• About two NAI routing approaches:

1) Orig. modify Destination-Realm and User-Name– Has an issue of “early consumption” of the request when entering a

realm that has no idea of NAI decoration2) Alt. modify User-Name, keep Destination-Realm– Has an issues of being prone for routing loops when entering a realm

that has no idea of NAI decoration– Has an issue of not “consuming” NAI decoration completely when a

request goes through realms that has no idea of NAI decoration• Both issues for 1) and 2) can be at least solved by defining a new

application when NAI decoration is used..• Approach 2) closer has better chances of delivering requests to the

final destination when entering a realm that has no idea of NAI decoration

• Do we need to modify the original approach? Probably the combination of 1) and 2) is a way forward..?

Questions & comments?