RE: question on draft-ietf-mobike-design-01.txt

Hi Hannes,

I will give a particular scenario, which will make explicit
the question I was trying to raise. The scenario is inline.

Atul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of ext Tschofenig Hannes
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 10:11 AM
> To: Sharma Atul (Nokia-ES/Boston); [email protected]
> Subject: AW: [Mobike] question on draft-ietf-mobike-design-01.txt
> 
> 
> hi atul, 
> 
> > In section 3.2 Multihoming scenario, do we allow simultaneous 
> > change of preferred addresses
> > at both the peers? The figure there kind of implies it. 
> 
> we say that each peer change its preferred address at any 
> time and that
> there needs to be a mechanism to communicate this change to 
> the other peer. 
> 
> if the peer address set contains more than one address then 
> both peers can
> still communicate with each other even if they happen to change their
> preferred address at the same time. 

Let us say Peer 1 has addresses A and B; Peer 2 has addresses C and D. Say
A and C are the advertised preferred addresses. Imagine both interfaces/paths
corresponding to A and C go down simultaneously. Peer 1 shall send to Peer 2
on address C telling the new preferred address is B. Peer 2 shall send to
Peer 1 on address A telling the new preferred address is D. But none of these
MOBIKE address change messages shall reach the other end.

Do we in the MOBIKE protocol incorporate the assumption that Peer 1 shall
always know of addresses C and D of Peer 2; and on not getting the ack from
Peer 2 on address change shall try sending the address change notification
to address D?

I had this kind of simultaneous change of preferred address in mind for the 
original question.


> (btw, i don't think that the figure is good enough to show 
> this situation.)

The figure does not explicitly describe this situatiopn, it just implies it
by saying: "If Peer A and Peer B change their preferred address".
 
> what is outside the scope is the case where a third entity would be
> required. 

I understand that, we are not taking the MobileIP path.
> > 
> > Could we explicitly say there whether we support such a 
> > simultaneous change? 
> 
> we can add something explicitly, if you think it is necessary. 

I think, it will definitely help.

> 
> ciao
> hannes
> 
> > 
> > Atul
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mobike mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike
>