Subject: [nemo] issue 44

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:52 -0700

hi all,

I am trying to resolve issue 44.
http://people.nokia.net/vijayd/nemo/issue44.txt

this error is most probably due to a mis-configuration
on the MR. we have 2 options

1. do nothing. if the MR sends a BU with multiple prefix
    options and receives a Binding Ack with status 142, it
    can try sending a BU again with one prefix at a time.

2. make the change that Erik suggested. the HA includes
    the offending prefix(es) in the Binding Ack. the MR can
    send a BU again with the offending prefix(es) removed.

option 2 is definitely the better one, but I think it is
too big a change to do this late. I would prefer to leave
it as it is and do the update later when the basic support
spec is updated.

comments are welcome.

Vijay

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:22:48 -0700

I havent heard from anyone. so I assume we are not doing this
change now.

Erik?

Vijay

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:10:50 -0700

> I havent heard from anyone. so I assume we are not doing this

My main issue was that the draft wasn't clear what happens when some 
prefixes are ok and others not.

So if folks don't see a benefit (for debugging or operations) with 
telling the MR which prefixes failed, I don't have a problem with doing 
nothing on that front.

    Erik

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 05:34:39 +0900

I prefer option 1 (do nothing).

I agree that option 2 is useful for debugging and operation.
But, we need more consideration before going with option 2.

For example, MR sends BU with 2001:a::/48,
but only 2001:a:b::/64 is valid.
How can HA include offending prefixes in BA?

regards,
ryuji

On 2004/10/30, at 2:10, Erik Nordmark wrote:

> telling the MR which prefixes failed, I don't have a problem with 
> doing nothing on that front.
>
>    Erik

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:00:38 -0700

> How can HA include offending prefixes in BA?

It would tell you that 2001:a::/48 was invalid.
Thus it would only be useful when there are multiple prefixes in the BU.

   Erik