Re: RE: [nemo] multiple CoAs registration

Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:

>Hi Hesham,
>
>At Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:43:11 -0400,
>Soliman Hesham wrote:
>  
>
>> >  > I don't think we have consensus on using the HoA to identify 
>> > >  > a binding.
>> > > 
>> > > => We have a MIPv6 (RFC now!) that says that the HoA
>> > > is used to identify a binding in the binding cache.
>> > > So I'd say we have concensus on that.
>> > 
>> > I am talking about the case when multiple CoAs are bounded to a HoA.
>> > When two bindings have same HoA, how do you identify each 
>> > binding with same HoA?
>>
>>=> By other attributes of that binding: CoA, CN's address, port nos, 
>>flow label ...etc
>>    
>>
>
>CoA can not be used to identify binding, because it is changed. 
>I wrote some comments before (I replied to Nicolas)
>
>maybe by filter information, but you can not identify two bindings if
>MN does not have filter information. Filter information is not always
>mandatory information. There are several approaches to maintain
>filter information.
>
>I prefer using ID to identify bindings and may associate filter
>information with the IFID somewhere (maybe binding cache, maybe not).
>This approach gives space for policy management and its
>implementation.
>
Yes but I am not sure that an Interface ID is the better way to have a 
unique identifier of a binding...

Nicolas


>
>regards,
>ryuji
>  
>