Re: [nemo] WG: new I-D on HA filtering

>  > > => Definitely not the right WG for this. The right WG
>  > > is MIP6 or if MIPSHOP had a more flexible name/charter
>  > > it could go there as well. There is nothing NEMO specific
>  > > for this problem.
>  > 
>  > Sorry, I tend to disagree. Ideally, the solution should work for both
>  > Mobile IPv6 and NEMO Basic Support. So, if design team there is, we
>  > should have people from both working groups, making sure it work for
>  > both protocol. This said, whether the report is actually done, during
>  > the IETF meeting, in the NEMO WG or another WG may not be important.
> 
> => Well, the problem is how to allow flow-based mobility,
> where the flow is a connection or more. To do this, 
> there are 2 aspects to consider:
> - How to decide which flow goes where (policy)
> - How to manipulate a binding cache in the HA/CN to achieve
>   this. 
> 
> Since we're talking about multiple CoAs, this does not
> apply to an MNN (node behind the MR) until an RO
> solution for NEMO comes up. It could certainly apply to an
> MR with more than one interface, but I fail to see
> why anything designed for a MN would not work
> for the MR. 

Hi Hesham,

In NEMO Basic Support, one issue we already have is how to select the
interface/CoA at the MR. It would probably be useful that the MNN kind
of interact with the MR (to exchange policies, for instance), and this
doesn't break the NEMO "Mobility Transparency to MNNs". 

Besides this, since NEMO Basic Support is clearly based on MIP, having
the relevant extensions explicitly stating how it works at CN/HA/MR/MH
is important. 

Let's have another BoF for interface switching and CoA selection ! :-) 
Just kidding - there are already so many WGs to follow :-(
 
> Having said all that, there is no WG membership in IETF :)
> So if the chairs decide to have a DT, which is not at all
> clear, then it is likely that people with interest in
> NEMO and MIP will be in it. ButI don't know if
> a DT is needed anyway.

Right.

Thierry.