Subject: [mobile-ip] Multiple CoA registration

From: Ryuji Wakikawa<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:57:48 +0900

Hi all.

I recently submitted the new version of multiple care-of address
registration draft and got one slot to present this draft at Vienna
MIP6 meeting. 

This draft enables a mobile node to register multiple CoAs which are
bounded to the MN's home address.
When a mobile node has multiple network devices and possibly gets
multiple CoAs, the mobile node sometime wants to use both of network
devices at the same time (i.e. multihomed MN). 

I submitted this draft to MIP wg, but this draft can be applied to the
NEMO basic solution as well.

Before the meeting, I want to get some feedback from MIP6 members.
Thanks in advance.
ryuji

Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-01.txt
From: [email-masked]
To: IETF-Announce: ;
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:29:24 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Multiple Care-of Address Registration on Mobile IPv6
	Author(s)	: R. Wakikawa et al.
	Filename	: draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-01.txt
	Pages		: 20
	Date		: 2003-7-3
	
This draft proposes extensions of Mobile IPv6 in order to register
multiple care-of addresses to a home agent and correspondent nodes.
This draft also targets Network Mobility (NEMO). According to the
current specification of Mobile IPv6, a mobile node can register only
one of care-of addresses as its primary care-of address even if the
mobile node has multiple active care-of address.  However, it is
useful to get Internet access through multiple access media (i.e.
care-of addresses) simultaneously in terms of bandwidth, delay,
and etc.  Our extensions are thus designed to register multiple
care-of addresses bound to a single home address to a home agent and
correspondent nodes.  For doing so, we propose a new identification
number for each interface of a mobile node.  The mobile node
registers a care-of address with the identification number so that
the receiver can distinguish the binding.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Soliman Hesham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:53:33 -0400

> >  > The use of MIP becomes expensive operations in some situation.
 > > 
 > > => Could you elaborate on this ?
 > 
 > If MN has 10 policies for a destination, the size of BU becomes large
 > due to additional 10 options. If an interface has narrow bandwidth,
 > the bigger BU causes overhead. no?

=> I don't understand what you mean by "10 policies for a destination" ?
We don't send policies in BUs. Or are you saying that the 
MN has 10 connections with the same CN ?

It doesn't matter how many connections you have, the 
BU size will be affected by the number of interfaces/CoAs
that you have. And for that matter, you will not have
10 different interfaces any time soon!

 > There is benefit to register multiple CoAs to CNs.
 > If MN registers multiple CoAs to CN with MN's policy, MN
 > can use multiple CoAs effectively at the same time.

=> If the multiple CoAs are associated with multiple
flows then yes of course this is useful. But Bicasting
from the CN will have limited use IMO, if it's ever used.
Anyway, as I said the draft can be used that way and
people want that to go in we can put it in.

 > 
 > If MN registers multiple CoAs only to HA, MN should not do RO.
 > If MN has different types of interfaces which belong to different
 > domain, MN should notify these CoAs to HA and CNs instead of MAP.

=> If the MN's addresses are in different MAP domains maybe. 
But I'm not sure what your point is. Sending flow movement 
options to CNs is of course needed IMO, I was talking about 
bicasting from CNs. 

Hesham