Re: RE: [nemo] multiple CoAs registration

Hi Pascal,

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> 
> > >>
> > >>   - 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?

I don't think we have consensus on using the HoA to identify a binding.
There are advantages to use single HoA per MN and MR. 
Multiple HoAs allow nodes inside a mobile network to use multiple interfaces, but not MR.
MR also wants to use multiple interfaces for its communication, then
we need some other scheme like IFID.

regards,
ryuji