Subject: [mobile-ip] RE: [nemo] multiple CoAs registration

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:31:43 +0100

> >>
> >>   - Why do you introduce the interface identification (IFID) ? It
could
> >>be sufficient to only register a CoA with the associated priority.
> >>Therefore, when the MN has to choose the destination address for a
HoA,
> >>it can take the most preferred CoA, which is bound to the most
preferred
> >>interface of the MN.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Priority can be changed by some reason during communication, but IFID
> >can not be changed until MN want to change it.
> >
> Ok, I understand that. But what I mean is that I don't see the
> requirement to have the IFID... In the Binding Cache, an entry could
be
> identified by both the Home address and the CoA. It is sufficient to
> distinguish tow different entries. The priority field is then used to
> choose the CoA, i.e. the interface. No need to have the IFID I guess.

I believe we talked about that a lot already; there seems to be a
consensus on using the home address to identify uniquely a registration,
for checking and cleanup purposes. The IFID should not be used to that
purpose, and a registration should be able to migrate interface on the
MR side. If we do not find a valid usage for ifid (I have none in mind
at the moment) then it should be dropped, shouldn't it?

Pascal

---

From: "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:34:39 +0200

Hi Pascal, Ryuji, Nicolas & others,

We have also submitted a v6 draft related to your discussions recently. We
have been researching in this particular area in IPv4 for a long time and 
already have a IETF draft at,

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nomad-mobileip-filters-03.txt.

Our new draft for the v6 is based on the experience we gained with the
implementation of v4 draft. You can access this draft at our web-site
(http://www.comnets.uni-bremen.de/english/research/draft-nomadv6-mobileip-fi
lters-00.txt) until it gets added at the IETF list.

In summary, this draft focuses on

- Handling multiple CoAs even with single home address
- Differentiation and distribution of IP flows among available points of 
attachment

It is compatible with Route Optimization, Hierarchical Mobile IP &
multi-homing.

Please give your comments on this as well.

Kind regards

Koojana

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Pascal Thubert
(pthubert)
Gesendet: Montag, 21. Juli 2003 20:32
An: Nicolas Montavont; Ryuji Wakikawa
Cc: mobileip; [email-masked]
Betreff: [mobile-ip] RE: [nemo] multiple CoAs registration

could
HoA,
preferred
be

Pascal

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:12:19 +0900

Hi Pascal,

> at the moment) then it should be dropped, shouldn't it?

I don't think we have consensus on using the HoA to identify a binding.
There are advantages to use single HoA per MN and MR. 
Multiple HoAs allow nodes inside a mobile network to use multiple interfaces, but not MR.
MR also wants to use multiple interfaces for its communication, then
we need some other scheme like IFID.

regards,
ryuji

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:43:33 +0200

Hi all,

We're also working on this issue. We're just finishing an I-D quite 
similar to your.
It will be online tomorrow, I'll send an URL.

Regards,
Nicolas