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

Hi Ken, Thomas & all

First of all, I was not able to check my mails last days. Sorry for delay in
replying.


> >> > Hi Koojana, All,
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps, we should initiate a discussion in mobile-ip or nemo WG to
> >> discuss
> >> > >
> >> > > about this topic.
> >> > >
> >> > I Agree with you, we have now several drafts and it will be
> interesting
> >> > to converge towards an unique solution to solve this issue.
> >>
> >> Can we discuss filters/policies and multipleCoAs registration
> separately?
> 
> >> IMHO, Multiple CoAs and Flow Distributions should be discussed
> together. The
> 
> >> reason is because once multiple CoAs are available, the natural
> requirement
> >> that follows would be to use these points of attachments efficiently.
> 
> I think we discuss filters/policies and multiple CoAs registration
> separately. Because they are independent and separate discussion is
> more simple.
> 
> The following is example for independency.
> 1. When CoAs are not changed but filters/policies need to be changed,
>    MN want to change filters/policies only.


This aspect is true. But, when there are multiple CoAs, flow distribution
should naturally be present, instead of using one CoA or multiplying packets
to each CoA.



> It is ok for me that multiple CoA registration objects and
> filters/policies objects are transfered in the same packet,
> because it is efficient way.
> But a discussion of multiple CoAs and filters/policies needs to be
> separate.


Our focus (as defined in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nomadv6-mobileip-filters-00.txt)
is to keep multiple CoA registrations without duplicating traffic to each
active Point of Attachments. For this, we use a flow distribution mechanism.

I believe, multiple CoA registration & filters/policies go together. 
Anyway, as Thomas mentioned we have to define clearly what issues we would 
like to solve.


Kind regards

Koojana