Re: AW: RE: [nemo] multiple CoAs registration

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

Koojana Kuladinithi wrote:

>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
> 
>
>
>  
>