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

Koojana, Thomas and all, 

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 12:56:54 +0200, "Koojana Kuladinithi" <[email protected]> said:

>> 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.

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

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

K> I believe, multiple CoA registration & filters/policies go together. 

I would like to know why you believe they go together?


K> Anyway, as Thomas mentioned we have to define clearly what issues we would 
K> like to solve.

Agreed.

Regards,
Ken Nagami