AW: RE: [nemo] multiple CoAs registration

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

> >>
> >>   - 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